Podcasts about trial by jury

7NEWS Reporter Mylee Hogan live from the Canary Islands, Local Coffee Van Owner Patrick Doyle, Sunrise Reporter Andrew McCormack, Adelaide Parklands Association President Mat Monti, 7NEWS and FIVEAA Reporter Jono Edwards, Australian Financial Review Political Editor Phil Coorey, Trial By Jury, Union Firefighters Union Acting Secretary Peter Russell, Professor Nigel Phair - Professor of Cybersecurity at Monash University, and Royal Australian College of GPs Vice President Dr Ramya Raman. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What if the single most important check on government power was quietly dismantled in the 1830s, and nobody told you? Ashe sits down with Jonathan Drake of the No Treason podcast to break down Lysander Spooner's case for trial by jury, what it actually meant at the founding, and how it became the hollow shell we have today. From jury nullification to the legal priestly class to why getting jury duty might be the most powerful civic act you can take, this is the kind of conversation that rewires how you think about justice, liberty, and who is actually in charge. Spoiler: it is not you. Yet.

Italy's failed referendum, trial by jury at risk in the UK, and elections in Denmark and France. Then: what a mutiny at high sea tells us about (un)freedom, North Korea's forced labor program, Central Asian migrants' exodus from Russia, and FC Barcelona's labor violations. + https://shorturl.at/iUMhD +?maca=en-podcast_inside-europe-949-xml-mrss

Professor Tim Evans of Middlesex University says that English common law is the absolute jewel of the UK and that the undermining of trial by jury is utterly shocking; doubly so that it is being done by Labour, which has usually been at the vanguard of civil liberties. The UK public setor is withering and being hollowed out from the inside. He discusses whether the equality of women in society was not only a political story but also an economic one, concluding that – as with other stories of liberation – it is a bit of both. Reform is now Britain's best-funded political party, which is of particular significance in the run-up to the local elections. Tim notes that Reform is now stealing Tory policies such as setting up a sovereign wealth fund. Better late than never. If it encourages other parties to commit to this, then all to the good. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In Episode 19 of The No Treason Podcast, Jonathan Drake continues his deep dive into Lysander Spooner's defense of true trial by jury, focusing on the rights and duties of juries in civil suits. Building on last week's discussion of oaths and objections, Drake unpacks Spooner's argument that juries must hold the same authority in civil cases as they do in criminal ones—judging not just the facts, but the justice of the law itself. The episode explores the distinction between civil and criminal law through the lens of intent, the historical grounding of jury authority in Magna Carta, and the natural right of resistance to unjust laws. Drake lays out the uncomfortable but foundational idea that juries exist not merely to prevent tyranny, but to actively enforce liberty. He also examines how modern systems sidestep jury protections in civil penalties—especially in matters like taxation—undermining the jury's role as the “palladium of liberty.” The conversation closes with live audience engagement, tackling real-world concerns about courts, corruption, and the practical path back to a justice system rooted in natural law.

In Episode 17 of The No Treason Podcast, host Jonathan Drake continues a deep examination of Lysander Spooner's arguments on trial by jury, natural law, and the foundations of justice. The episode focuses on the historical role of juries as courts of conscience rather than enforcers of statutory law, tracing this principle through Anglo-Saxon tradition, English common law, and recorded juror oaths. Jonathan breaks down how juries were historically expected to judge guilt or innocence based on intrinsic justice, not legislative command, and why this understanding placed real limits on kings, judges, and governments. The discussion contrasts this framework with modern legal systems, where procedural control, evidence restriction, and judicial instruction often undermine jury independence. Throughout the episode, the emphasis remains on consent, moral responsibility, and the idea that justice is discovered through natural law rather than created by authority. This chapter advances the series' central argument that reclaiming the true function of the jury is essential to resisting tyranny and restoring liberty.

In Episode 16 of The No Treason Podcast, host Jonathan Drake continues his deep dive into Lysander Spooner's Trial by Jury, focusing on the historical role of juries as true courts of conscience. The episode explores how Anglo-Saxon legal systems decentralized power, placing judgment not in the hands of monarchs or professional elites, but in the people themselves. Jonathan walks through historical sources showing that juries judged both fact and law according to natural equity, not royal statutes, and examines how judges originally served as advisers rather than authorities. The discussion highlights how this structure acted as a safeguard against tyranny and why modern legal systems have drifted so far from this model. By tracing the evolution of jury power, this episode underscores the central argument that liberty is preserved not through elections or written laws alone, but through active participation by informed citizens exercising moral judgment.

In Episode 14 of The No Treason Podcast, Jonathan Drake continues his deep examination of trial by jury through the lens of Lysander Spooner's writings, moving into the historical foundations of Magna Carta. Building on prior episodes, Jonathan explains why the Constitution and state constitutions acknowledge trial by jury without defining it, emphasizing that the right predates government itself and cannot be legitimately redefined. The episode traces the political and legal conditions surrounding King John, the Norman system of centralized power, and the barons' revolt that led to Magna Carta, focusing especially on Clause 39 and its role in limiting tyranny. Jonathan walks through Spooner's argument that trial by jury was intended to give jurors authority to judge not only facts, but the justice of the law itself, placing real power in the hands of the people. The discussion contrasts Anglo-Saxon legal traditions with Norman rule, addresses later historical revisionism, and sets the stage for a closer analysis of Magna Carta's language in the next episode.

In Episode 13 of The No Treason Podcast, Jonathan Drake continues his deep dive into Lysander Spooner's Trial by Jury, expanding the discussion into the historical and philosophical foundations of jury nullification and lawful resistance. Drake examines why trial by jury was understood by the Founders as a safeguard against tyranny rather than a procedural formality, connecting it directly to natural law, consent of the governed, and the right to bear arms. The episode explores how modern courts have hollowed out the jury's original role, replacing trial by country with trial by government, and why this shift leaves citizens without a peaceful means to check unjust laws. Drawing from Spooner's writings, early American legal tradition, and real-world examples, Drake argues that true liberty depends on restoring the jury's authority to judge both law and fact. This episode sets the stage for a deeper historical examination of trial by jury and why it remains essential to resisting centralized power.

In Episode 12 of The No Treason Podcast, Jonathan Drake continues a deep exploration of trial by jury through the lens of Lysander Spooner's Trial by Jury, arguing that modern courts have stripped juries of their historic power and turned justice into a government-controlled illusion. Building from last week's foundation, this episode confronts the claim that government already represents the people, examining why unchecked authority, judicial supremacy, and managed elections undermine genuine self-government. Drake walks through Spooner's rebuttals, connects theory to real-world cases like Tina Peters, and explains why unanimous juries once served as a true barrier against tyranny. This episode challenges listeners to reconsider liberty, consent, and the role of the people in determining justice, asking whether modern trials protect freedom or merely perform it.

Jonathan Drake begins a new series with the first episode of his deep dive into Lysander Spooner's An Essay on the Trial by Jury, framing it as the next critical pillar in understanding natural law after concluding No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. He walks through Spooner's argument that true liberty depends on juries judging not just facts, but the justice of laws themselves, placing ultimate authority in the hands of the people rather than the state. Jonathan traces the ancient roots of trial by jury through English common law, the Magna Carta, and the American founding, contrasting “trial by country” with modern courtrooms that function as trials by government. Using the Tina Peters case as a modern example, he explains how judicial control of evidence and jury instruction has hollowed out the system while preserving its appearance. This episode lays the philosophical groundwork for why jury nullification, unanimity, and random selection are essential safeguards against despotism, and why reclaiming this knowledge may be one of the last peaceful checks on unchecked power.

Professor Tim Evans adds his voice to those opposing the restriction to trial by jury. It is an ancient right to be judged by one's peers, a democratic safeguard of liberty against an overbearing state. He feels it will lead to a loss of public confidence and democratic illegitimacy of the legal system. Without the rule of law, you don't have trust and without trust you don't have an economy. The government need to find other ways to reduce the legal backlog. While the Chancellor and her advisers appear not to have worked out exactly how EV users will be charged per mile they drive, Tim wonders if she realises that the idea is a darling of the libertarian right, proposed by Milton Friedman back in the early 1950s. It is, in essence, returning to the Georgian era of turnpikes. He feels, though, that it will create an incentive to keep roads in a good state. The era of all roads being "The King's Highway" can no longer be afforded. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week we look at Christmas, clashes between Pakistan and Afghanistan; attempted coup in Benin; Country of the week - Northern Ireland;  Males banned from Girl Guides; Rob Smith - The Body God Gives; The end of trial by jury?;  Climate Change - Deforestation in Indonesia; the humility of Mitchell Starc; The Queens Gambit and Nona Gaprindashvili; Radiohead and Gaelic Psalm 9; Rainn Wilson and Alex O'Connor;  Conversations with Geoff Bullock; Suffering with Steve Laws; and the Final Word.with music from Bob Dylan, Colin Buchanan,  Stiff Little Fingers, Anonymous Ulster, Radiohead, Back Gaelic Psalm Singers; Geoff Bullock;  and the Gettys.

David Lammy has announced serious crimes likely to lead to a prison sentence of less than three years will now be decided by a judge alone. Also: A report into the Hillsborough disaster says twelve police officers would have faced gross misconduct proceedings if they hadn't retired. And the Girlguiding organisation says trans girls and young women will no longer be allowed to join as new members.

The Justice Secretary, David Lammy, is proposing to restrict the ancient right to trial by jury in courts in England and Wales to the most serious cases, such as rape and murder. Also: the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has announced the minimum wage is to go up next year. And scientists find there are five ages of the human brain, including a surprisingly long adolescence.

Everyone's encountered a Dick Wolf TV show production at one point whether it's while sick in bed from school or at a random party so it's time to have others note the absolute most memorable antagonists (who were either one-offs or a recurring presence).   How many were corrupt big pharma suits, corrupt detectives or shady prosecutors and how many were atypical thieves, spree killers and truly shameless crimelords?   Some quick and to-the-point reminiscing about some clever must-see TV that resembles a potboiling, page-turning novel!       SHOWS MENTIONED: Law & Order saga (Original show, SVU, CI, OC, Trial By Jury, Conviction) New York Undercover FBI & FBI: Most Wanted Chicago Fire/PD Chicago Justice       GUESTS FEATURED: Aahana Asija (Jean from X) Leanne Caruso Oliver Rockside & Jasen Bach (In Your Earholes Network) Oreo Brewer     Free-To-Use Music by Soundscrate.

Ein Sprung in die humorvolle Welt der Oper. Stefan Bittner inszeniert Puccini und Monty Python in einem einzigartigen Theaterstück. Zwischen Tradition und Komik entsteht ein faszinierendes Erlebnis, das die Sinne herausfordert.

Brad Perry, Peter Cirocco, David Basheer, Angie Bell, Xanthe Mallett, Timmy G, Phil Coorey, Trial By Jury, Unley Mayor Michael Hewitson, Sturt CEO Sue Dewing, Stephen Mullighan & your calls. Listen live on the FIVEAA Player. Follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram. Subscribe on YouTubeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Our jury was asked if they accept the apology from Environmental Minister Murray Watt. Listen live on the FIVEAA Player. Follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram. Subscribe on YouTubeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In Episode 106 of Culture of Change, Ashe in America and Abbey Blue Eyes deliver an honest, soul-stirring conversation about trust, trust in God, in ourselves, and in the process of becoming who we're meant to be. The ladies talk about spiritual attacks, the lies we believe about our worth, and how easy it is to get caught up in comparison and perfectionism. With laughter, scripture, and lived experience, they break down what it means to let go of fear and walk in divine confidence, even when the path feels uncertain. Ashe shares insights from a season of surrender, while Abbey reflects on the beauty of daily obedience. From parenting and purpose to identity and intimacy with God, this episode reminds listeners that transformation starts with a “yes,” no matter how small.

Trial By Jury

On the second day of Diddy's federal trial, all eyes turned to star witness Cassie Ventura. The singer, once signed to Bad Boy records, had a complex relationship with Diddy marked by abuse. But will the jury see her only as a victim? We'll ask one of Bill Cosby's former attorneys, Monique Pressley. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On day three of Diddy's federal criminal trial, Cassie Ventura wrapped up her harrowing testimony — and the effects were immediate. Her words, and the disturbing details of Diddy's alleged abuse and so-called “freak offs," will have a big impact on the defense's strategy when they cross examine her tomorrow. In the latest episode of CNN's new Trial by Jury podcast, Laura Coates breaks down what it all means with criminal defense attorney and CNN legal analyst Mark O'Mara. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Legally speaking. Get an extra episode every week only at https://www.patreon.com/greatnight!

Legally speaking. Get an extra episode every week only at https://www.patreon.com/greatnight!

The federal racketeering and prostitution trial against rap star and producer Sean “Diddy” Combs got underway in New York on Monday. In our new series Trial By Jury, we bring you an inside look into the explosive opening arguments and the shock waves the trial is sending through the music world. CNN's Laura Coates sits down with music journalist and culture critic Touré to dig into how this trial is reshaping Diddy's legacy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The federal racketeering and prostitution trial against rap star and producer Sean “Diddy” Combs got underway in New York on Monday. In our new series Trial By Jury, we bring you an inside look into the explosive opening arguments and the shock waves the trial is sending through the music world. CNN's Laura Coates sits down with music journalist and culture critic Touré to dig into how this trial is reshaping Diddy's legacy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Listen live on the FIVEAA Player. Follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram. Subscribe on YouTubeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Year, who dis? Only return guest, the iconic John Xintavelonis! (Yayyy!) As well as introducing, how brilliant new co-host, poached directly from 'Music Rewind Podcast', Stephen Epley!This week, John and AW drag Stephen through a Trial by Jury - but will it be a Death by Fire?Plus, we chat Theatre Ghosts, Guys and Dolls on Sydney Harbour, Bringing Big Musical Tours to Tassie, Aussie Rules Football, and heaps more in this hilarrrious episode! --SOCIALS--John X: Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnxactor -- IG: instagram.com/johnxactor Guys and Dolls Tickets: https://opera.org.au/productions/guys-dolls-on-sydney-harbour/Stephen: Twitter: https://x.com/MusicRewindPod -- IG: https://www.instagram.com/musicrewindpodcast/Music Rewind Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/3iBCPPLvFMP1nXsrPm8O2N?si=ea8a05cea62d4949*****Juxtaposing Metal with Musicals - joined by iconic guests from the worlds of Music, Broadway, Hollywood, and more! https://www.thetonastontales.com/listen -- https://www.patreon.com/bloomingtheatricals - https://twitter.com/thrashntreasurehttps://linktr.ee/thrashntreasure*****Help support Thrash 'n Treasure and keep us on-air, PLUS go on a fantastical adventure at the same time!Grab your copy of The Tonaston Tales by AW, and use the code TNT20 when you check out for 20% off eBooks and Paperbacks!https://www.thetonastontales.com/bookstore - TNT20 *****   ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to appear anonymously in New York papers under the pseudonym "Publius" in 1787 and 1788, the Federalist Papers aimed to rally public support for the proposed Constitution of the United States. As such, it is one of the most important sources for understanding the original intent of the US Constitution by those who participated in its construction. In Federalist number one Alexander Hamilton sets forth the ambition of arguing the following positions in favor of the adoption of the Constitution: "I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY." Articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.   If you enjoy our content, consider donating through PayPal via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist   Take a moment to enjoy our weekly Photos of the Day videos here - short slideshows with relaxing music ...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_9GPi4HTqoZ8xFgTldbBaA   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com   #thechristianatheist #drjohndwise #drjohnwise #johnwise #christian #atheist #christianity #atheism #jesus #jesuschrist #god #bible #oldtestament #newtestament #nocompromise #rationality #faith #philosophy #philosopher #culture #society #hegelism #hegelianism #hegel #reason #incarnation #history#psychology #theology #literature #humanities #hardquestions #postmodernism #woke #wisdom #ethics

Authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to appear anonymously in New York papers under the pseudonym "Publius" in 1787 and 1788, the Federalist Papers aimed to rally public support for the proposed Constitution of the United States. As such, it is one of the most important sources for understanding the original intent of the US Constitution by those who participated in its construction. In Federalist number one Alexander Hamilton sets forth the ambition of arguing the following positions in favor of the adoption of the Constitution: "I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY." Articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.   If you enjoy our content, consider donating through PayPal via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist   Take a moment to enjoy our weekly Photos of the Day videos here - short slideshows with relaxing music ...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_9GPi4HTqoZ8xFgTldbBaA   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com   #thechristianatheist #drjohndwise #drjohnwise #johnwise #christian #atheist #christianity #atheism #jesus #jesuschrist #god #bible #oldtestament #newtestament #nocompromise #rationality #faith #philosophy #philosopher #culture #society #hegelism #hegelianism #hegel #reason #incarnation #history#psychology #theology #literature #humanities #hardquestions #postmodernism #woke #wisdom #ethics #science #poetry #paradox #oxymoron

The U.S. Supreme Court has restored the right to a jury trial for Americans facing the Administrative State by affirming the Fifth Circuit's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. This overturned the SEC's unconstitutional administrative prosecution regime, which targeted George R. Jarkesy, Jr. in a lengthy administrative proceeding without a jury. The Court, agreeing with NCLA's brief, ruled 6-3 that the SEC violated Jarkesy's Seventh Amendment rights. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin are joined by Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little to discuss and celebrate this historic victory vindicating Americans' civil liberties.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to a jury trial for Americans facing administrative proceedings, striking down the SEC's administrative prosecution regime. The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, ruling 6-3 that the SEC violated George R. Jarkesy Jr.'s Seventh Amendment rights by using an Administrative Law Judge without a jury. This decision, aligning with the New Civil Liberties Alliance's amicus brief, marks a significant victory for civil liberties and limits the SEC's abuse of power.Mark, Vec, and Jenin celebrate the victory in this latest episode. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to a jury trial for Americans facing administrative proceedings, striking down the SEC's administrative prosecution regime. The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, ruling 6-3 that the SEC violated George R. Jarkesy Jr.'s Seventh Amendment rights by using an Administrative Law Judge without a jury. This decision, aligning with the New Civil Liberties Alliance's amicus brief, marks a significant victory for civil liberties and limits the SEC's abuse of power.Mark, Vec, and Jenin continue to discuss the win in this episode and dig into an interesting footnote. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Atlanta author Aisha Saeed discusses her new children's book “Zuni and the Memory Jar.” We hear about this weekend's events with the hosts of How You Do Atlanta. WABE jazz and blues host H. Johnson talks about saxophonist Louis Jordan. Plus, the Canterbury Choristers' musical director, John King Carter, discusses their production of the one-act opera “Trial by Jury.”See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The unprecedented criminal trial of a former POTUS in NYC as the Soros-funded Marxists weaponize the legal system to pursue and punish their political opponents.

This week lawyers in New York are trying to pick the jury for Donald Trump's trial. On the first day more than 50 potential jurors were dismissed, with many saying they couldn't be impartial. In this episode of The Briefing we ask Chief Justice Lucy McCallum about the future of juries. Justice McCallum presided over the trial between Bruce Lehrmann and Brittany Higgins— that case ultimately had to be abandoned due to juror misconduct. Headlines: 16-year-old charged with terrorist act  Seven CEO James Warburton departs network Vape shops could be forced to close Cocaine mystery solved   Follow The Briefing:Instagram: @thebriefingpodcast Facebook: TheBriefingNewsAUTwitter: @TheBriefingAUSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Steve Forbes breaks down the landmark Supreme Court case, SEC v. Jarkesy, which could see the calcification of bureaucratic kangaroo courts or the restoration of a crucial freedom accorded by the Constitution. Steve Forbes shares his What's Ahead Spotlights each Tuesday, Thursday and Friday.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

词汇提示1.summoned 传唤2.penalties 惩罚的3.registering 登记注册4.panel 咨询组5.prosecution 控诉6.burglary 入室盗窃罪7.approximately 大约8.attorney 律师9.insinuate 暗示10.swayed 摇摆11.civil suit 民事诉讼12.preponderance 多数原文Trial By JuryIf you are a citizen of Canada or the United States, it is very likely that you will be summoned at some time for jury duty.A letter will come in the mail, telling you to report to a certain place at a given time.There are legal penalties for not attending, because jury duty is considered every citizen's responsibility.Often a large number of people, perhaps several hundred, will be summoned at onetime.When you arrive, you will join a line-up of others who are registering for duty.Eventually,you will get to a table and talk to an official.If you have a special reason for not being a juror, such as ill health, you may be excused at this point.Those not immediately exempted become a part of a "jury panel."Out of this panel, a number of juries of twelve people will be chosen.These will decide a variety of criminal cases over the next few weeks.What follows is the experience of one woman in a "jury pool."She went with the others into a large courtroom where they spent the whole day.At the front of the courtroom were the judge, and the lawyers for the prosecution and for the defense.One of the lawyers explained what the case was going to be about.The names of the jury panel were in a box at the front.When someone's name was called, they went up to the front of the courtroom.The person called up would then have a chance to explain why they couldn't serve as a juror, if there was some reason preventing them.For example, one woman was dismissed because she knew the accused.The first jury to be chosen was for a burglary case.A panel member went forward and faced the accused.Then the lawyers in the trial decided whether the juror was satisfactory to them.At lunchtime, the panel was dismissed for an hour.The second jury was to try someone on a charge of murder.Usually the panel was told approximately how long the trial might be.Since jurors are not usually paid, many would like to avoid being involved in a long trial.The woman was called forward and had to look the man accused of murder in the eye.This made her quite nervous.Judging by her expression, the two lawyers would decide whether they wanted her on the jury or not.The defense lawyer would try to choose someone who seemed sympathetic to the man accused.The prosecutor would prefer someone who was not sympathetic.The woman excused herself by saying that she had a very young child to look after and no relatives to help.She was allowed to go home at the end of the day.Some people wonder whether it is fair for lawyers to dismiss jurors who may not be sympathetic to their cases.For example, defense lawyers may try to choose young people if they think that these will be less severe to their clients.In the case above, the lawyer seemed to prefer women to men.This means that a lot of people are dismissed from being jurors without a good reason.One principle of the jury system, however, is to protect the rights of the accused particularly well.One might say that the jury system is biased in favor of the defendant.This is why defense lawyers have an opportunity to dismiss people who they think will not be favorable to their clients.Furthermore,having twelve jurors gives the defense good opportunity for a successful defense.If the defense attorney can raise a reasonable doubt about the guilt of his client in even one juror, then the accused has a chance of being released.This happened in the O. J. Simpson murder trial.There,even though there was strong evidence that Simpson committed the crime, the defense was able to insinuate some doubts among the jurors.Moreover,the defense lawyers may be able to appeal to the emotions of the jurors, particularly if they can think of a way to gain sympathy for their client.For this reason, defense lawyers are more likely to choose trial by jury over trial by judge alone.A judge is less likely to be swayed by emotion than a jury.And a defense attorney may also prefer a criminal trial to a civil suit.In the latter case, the client does not have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but will be found liable if the preponderance of evidence is against him or her.This is why O.J. Simpson was acquitted on criminal charges, but then found liable for damages in a civil suit.翻译陪审团审判如果你是加拿大或美国公民，你很可能会在某个时候被传唤履行陪审团义务。邮件中会有一封信，让你在特定的时间到特定的地点报到。由于陪审义务被认为是每个公民的责任，因此不参加陪审会受到法律处罚。通常一次会召集大量的人，可能有几百人。当你到达时，你将加入一排正在登记值班的人。最后，你会坐到一张桌子前，和一位官员交谈。如果你有特殊原因不能担任陪审员，比如身体不好，你可以在这一点上被原谅。那些没有立即获得豁免的人成为“陪审团”的一部分。从这个小组中，将选出12人组成的陪审团。他们将在未来几周内对各种刑事案件作出裁决。以下是一位女性在“陪审团池”中的经历。她和其他人一起走进一个大法庭，在那里度过了一整天。站在法庭前面的是法官，以及控方和辩方的律师。其中一位律师解释了这个案子的内容。陪审团的名字在前面的一个盒子里。当有人叫到名字时，他们就走到法庭前面。被召唤的人将有机会解释为什么他们不能担任陪审员，如果有什么原因阻止他们。例如，一名妇女因认识被告而被解雇。选出的第一个陪审团是一起入室盗窃案。一名陪审团成员走上前去面对被告。然后律师们在审判中决定陪审员是否令他们满意。午餐时，小组休息一小时。第二个陪审团要审判一个被控谋杀的人。通常陪审团会被告知审判大概需要多长时间。由于陪审员通常没有报酬，许多人希望避免卷入旷日持久的审判。那个女人被叫到前面，不得不正视那个被控谋杀的男人。这使她很紧张。根据她的表情，两位律师将决定是否让她加入陪审团。辩护律师会尽量选择一个似乎同情被告的人。公诉人会选择不同情他的人。那位妇女为自己辩解说，她有一个很小的孩子要照顾，没有亲戚可以帮忙。她被允许在一天结束时回家。一些人怀疑律师解雇那些可能对他们的案件不感兴趣的陪审员是否公平。例如，辩护律师可能会选择年轻人，如果他们认为这些人对他们的客户不那么严重。在上面的案例中，律师似乎更喜欢女人而不是男人。这意味着很多人在没有充分理由的情况下就被解雇了。然而，陪审制度的一个原则是特别保护被告的权利。有人可能会说陪审团制度偏向于被告。这就是为什么辩护律师有机会解雇那些他们认为对他们的客户不利的人。此外，有12名陪审员为辩方提供了成功辩护的好机会。如果辩护律师能对其当事人的有罪提出合理的怀疑，哪怕只有一名陪审员，那么被告就有机会被释放。这发生在o.j.辛普森谋杀案的审判中。在那里，即使有强有力的证据表明辛普森犯了罪，辩方还是能够在陪审员中引起一些怀疑。此外，辩护律师可能会吸引陪审员的情绪，特别是如果他们能想到一种方法来获得对他们的当事人的同情。出于这个原因，辩护律师更有可能选择陪审团审判而不是法官单独审判。法官不像陪审团那样容易受情绪影响。辩护律师也可能更喜欢刑事审判而不是民事诉讼。在后一种情况下，当事人不必在排除合理怀疑的情况下被证明有罪，但如果证据优势对他或她不利，则应被判有罪。这就是为什么O.J.辛普森在刑事指控中被判无罪，但在民事诉讼中却被判负有损害赔偿责任。

This episode is Largely Q&A;  regarding the episode Innocent Until Proven Guilty.  Support the show

Trial by Jury. Defense Against Tyranny. This is an ACU encore Presentation.

Despite countless investigations and numerous suspects over the years, the identity of the Zodiac Killer remains a mystery to this day. But what would it take to try this case in modern times? In order to build a strong case, new looks at Zodiac would need to start with a deep dive back into the original evidence, including potential DNA samples, fingerprints, and any other forensic evidence that might have been overlooked in the past - and that's what we're trying to do here.  In recent years, one suspect has started to attract the attention of a few modern day investigators, and that attention is beginning to shift the focus back to a man that holds a very interesting position in the case as we've come to know it.  Tonight, we're going to unpack a story that might be a little head scratching at first, but as you'll hear, the theory we're about to put forth, has roots that run very deep into Zodiac mythology. In fact, it has a lot to do with a suspect that, if you're familiar at all with this case, you'll know. But there's a twist to this story - one that plays right into the Zodiac's potential motives by playing directly to the ego that seemed to be at the center for every decision he ever made. When we started our look at this case, I really didn't know where it would take us. After hearing what you'll hear tonight, I'm more convinced than ever that we have identified the Zodiac killer. Or maybe I should say Zodiac killers. Welcome back to Vanished. This is a trial by jury for Don Cheney and Arthur Leigh Allen.  LINKS Our Website  Vanished on Twitter  Vanished on Instagram  Vanished on TikTok Vanished on Facebook  Vanished Facebook Discussion Group  Defense Diaries' Official Website  Defense Diaries on Twitter  Defense Diaries on TikTok  Sarah Cailean's Official Website  Sarah Cailean on Twitter  Sarah Cailean on Facebook  Drew Beeson's Official Website  Drew Beeson on Twitter  SHOW NOTES & FURTHER READING His Name Was Arthur Leigh Allen - on YouTube  Sighting In on The Zodiac Killer: Unmasking America's Most Puzzling Unsolved Murders by Drew Beeson  Don Cheney Speaks @ Zodiackiller.com 

词汇提示1.operetta 轻歌剧2.verse 诗歌3.puns 双关4.wit 机智5.businesslike 高效的6.composer 作曲家7.satire 讽刺诗8.triumph 胜利9.scripts 脚本10.rehearsed 排练11.orchestra 管弦乐队12.separately 分别地13.humming 哼鸣原文Gilbert and SullivanGilbert and Sullivan are the authors of many lively and humorous operetta.These works are the most popular of their kind, and are regularly performed today.But the two authors are known almost as well for their arguments and disagreements.The famous partners were very different people with very different interests.William S Gilbert wrote the words that Sullivan set to music.Gilbert had a special talent for humorous verse.He loved puns and had a very quick wit.Personally, though, he was very businesslike.He had wanted to enter the military and always had the look of a soldier about him.He was fond of giving orders and disliked criticism of anything he did.Arthur S Sullivan, on the other hand, was a sensitive, emotional person whose main interest was music.Sullivan came from a poor family, but his musical talents and good looks had helped him to succeed.Sullivan wanted to write serious, classical music, but as a poor man, he needed a source of income.Sullivan also needed someone to direct him on his own.He had trouble deciding what to do.Gilbert and Sullivan never became really good friends, and at the end of their lives, they had little contact with each other.But the writer and musician needed each other.Gilbert needed a composer who could enliven his writings for the stage.Sullivan needed someone to write a text for his music.Sullivan, who tended to be lazy, needed someone to push him.A theatrical manager named Richard D'Oyly Carte arranged their first collaboration.Gilbert visited Sullivan and read him his satire on the legal system “Trial By Jury”.Sullivan loved the piece and quickly wrote the music.“Trial By Jury” was produced in 1875 and became the first triumph for the partners.D'Oyly Carte decided to form an acting company, which would stage future works by Gilbert and Sullivan.A string of successes follows: "The Sorcerer"in 1877; "H. M. S. Pinafore" in May 1878; "The Pirates of Penzance" in December 1878; "Patience" in 1881;"lolanthe" in 1882; "The Mikado" in 1885;"The Yeomen of the Guard" in 1888;and "The Gondoliers" in 1889.In spite of these successes, the two partners were not happy.Sullivan did not like the way Gilbert dominated their relationship.Sullivan had to write music for Gilbert's scripts.Why couldn't Gilbert write words for Sullivan's music?Gilbert, on the other hand, thought that Sullivan got the most of the credit for the success of their operates, and that he was overlooked.Gilbert was a driving force in the relationship.He was always writing new scripts and taking them to Sullivan.It was Gilbert who rehearsed the actors and supervised the productions.Sullivan had little to do with the actual performance.He usually did conduct the orchestra on opening night.The amazing thing is how these two different people produced such wonderful work.Each separately had difficulty writing something that the public wanted.Together, they were unbeatable.Gilbert's sharp and often cutting remarks were made acceptable by Sullivan's beautiful music.Gilbert satire might have made people angry, but Sullivan's music calmed them down.Even when the English people were the targets of Gilbert's criticisms, the audience went out of the theater humming these criticisms to Sullivan's music.翻译吉尔伯特和沙利文吉尔伯特和苏利文创作了许多生动幽默的轻歌剧。这些作品是同类作品中最受欢迎的，至今仍经常上演。但这两位作者的争论和分歧几乎同样为人所知。这些著名的合伙人是不同的人，有着不同的兴趣。威廉·S·吉尔伯特(William S Gilbert)写了沙利文谱成音乐的歌词。吉尔伯特有写幽默诗的特殊才能。他喜欢双关语，而且非常机智。不过，就个人而言，他非常务实。他曾想从军，而且总是一副士兵的样子。他喜欢发号施令，不喜欢批评他所做的任何事情。另一方面，亚瑟·S·苏利文是一个敏感、情绪化的人，他的主要兴趣是音乐。沙利文来自一个贫穷的家庭，但他的音乐天赋和英俊的外表帮助他取得了成功。沙利文想创作严肃的古典音乐，但作为一个穷人，他需要一个收入来源。沙利文也需要有人亲自指导他。他难以决定该做什么。吉尔伯特和沙利文从未成为真正的好朋友，在他们生命的最后阶段，他们彼此几乎没有联系。但是作家和音乐家彼此需要。吉尔伯特需要一个能使他的作品在舞台上生动起来的作曲家。沙利文需要有人为他的音乐写一段文字。沙利文很懒，需要有人来督促他。一位名叫理查德·德奥利·卡特的戏剧经理安排了他们的第一次合作。吉尔伯特拜访了沙利文，给他读了他对法律制度的讽刺作品《陪审团审判》。沙利文很喜欢这首曲子，很快就完成了配乐。《陪审团审判》制作于1875年，成为合伙人的第一个胜利。多伊利·卡特决定成立一家表演公司，为吉尔伯特和沙利文日后的作品演出。一系列的成功接踵而至:1877年的《魔法师》;1878年5月的《H. M. S. Pinafore》;1878年12月的《彭赞斯海盗》;1881年的《耐心》;1882年的《洛兰瑟》;1885年的《天皇》;1888年的《近卫自耕农》以及1889年的《船夫》。尽管取得了这些成功，但这两个合伙人并不快乐。沙利文不喜欢吉尔伯特主导他们的关系。沙利文必须为吉尔伯特的剧本作曲。为什么吉尔伯特不能为沙利文的音乐写歌词?另一方面，吉尔伯特认为苏利文获得了他们行动成功的大部分功劳，而他被忽视了。吉尔伯特是这段关系的推动力。他总是写新剧本，然后拿给沙利文看。是吉尔伯特为演员排练并监督制作。苏利文几乎没有参与演出。他通常会在首演之夜指挥管弦乐队。令人惊讶的是，这两个不同的人是如何创作出如此美妙的作品的。他们各自都很难写出公众想要的东西。他们在一起是不可战胜的。吉尔伯特尖锐而又尖刻的评论被沙利文优美的音乐所接受。吉尔伯特的讽刺可能会让人们愤怒，但沙利文的音乐让他们平静下来。即使英国人民是吉尔伯特批评的对象，观众走出剧院时也会哼着这些批评的歌，配上沙利文的音乐。

An Essay on the Trial By Jury

Dan I get into how we got lost by the way side with Jury by trial. Then we get into some other topics that I think will tickle you fancy if you decide to listen in a bit longer! CHeers and enjoy  --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/paul-a-wice/support

In this episode, Serge and Clarke explore the phenomenon of the diminishing trial by jury. After explaining the statistics -- which are shocking -- Serge and Clarke seek to answer the questions of why the trial by jury is disappearing and the consequences of this significant change to the criminal justice process in America. 

The Founding Fathers were fond of brevity in creating our constitution.  While few in words and somewhat overlooked compared to some of the other amendments, the 7th Amendment is long in impact.  To be succinct, the 7th Amendment guarantees civil cases can be heard and decided by a jury.  Why was this needed?  What concerns were the Founders alleviating?  And why does it mention a $20 minimum dispute?  Join returning guest Joerg Knipprath with Southwestern Law School and our brilliant student panel for this chat on the 7th Amendment.

In this Bonus episode I continue the fantastic essay by Spooner and begin the chapter on the free administration of justice. If the justice system can't produce justice then it can and should be IGNORED by the people. But of course the govt INSISTS you ONLY seek justice inside their CORRUPT SYSTEM. The Quash comes out on Sundays with a bonus some Thursdays. If you like The Quash you should support it. Go become a member at patreon.com/theQuash. You get all sorts of additional shows each month and access to my entire library with 100's of great shows. Plus you get access to a live show each month and a private members only Telegram channel where you can hang out with like minded people. You can follow me on Twitter or Gab. I'm Legalman@USlawreview on both. You can join my public Telegram channel to keep up with me when I get booted and to find other people who like the show and get what is going on in this open air asylum. https://t.me/+PMYi9wodcUo4NjBh You can read my articles at thetruthabouthelaw.com

In this episode I begin my reading and discussion of Trial by jury, one of the most important essays on political freedom ever written. People must begin to understand the most fundamental right we have. Jury nullification. If you like The Quash you can get more and support it. Just go to patreon.com/theQuash and become a member. The Quash comes out on Sundays. AH episodes have more harsh language. You can follow me on Twitter I'm Legalman@USlawreview You can read my articles at thetruthaboutthelaw.com

Trial by Jury Defense Against Tyranny This is an encore presentation from our ACU Archives.