“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” – Eighth Amendment
“A common argument defense lawyers make when trying to get courts to dismiss evidence obtained illegally against their client is that it was “the fruit of the poisoned tree”. The PATRIOT Act itself was the fruit of the tree of law enforcement’s relentless desire to be free of the inconveniences of the Fourth amendment and its guiding principles of privacy and due process.” – Brian Doherty, p. 17, Reason Magazine, November, 2021
A system of justice must replace the current ‘legal system as a Cash Cow’ system we have now.
1. Guilt, Innocence,
and the Right to Trial by Jury
Requiring a unanimous verdict is a strategy used to cheat the defendant and guarantee a conviction. A very simple change eliminates this injustice.
If a unanimous verdict is required, anything less is an acquittal. According to the U.S. system, this is a ‘hung jury’, and a do-over occurs. The ‘government,’ which never pays its bills but has access to unlimited taxpayer funding, can now keep a defendant,whose funds are limited, going to court forever.
This is a recipe for deliberate dishonesty and the elimination of the right to a jury trial. It also explains the incredibly high percentage of cases which result in a ‘plea bargain.”
Solution
Once jury deliberation begins, juries will have as many business days as they require to reach a verdict. They can have as many votes each day as they like. The only one that counts is the last of the day.
They can vote on a maximum of 3 days.
The first vote must be unanimous for a conviction.
The second vote must be at least 11 of 12 for a conviction.
The third vote must be at least 9 of 12 for a conviction.
If any day’s last vote is less than 9 of 12 for conviction, it is an acquittal.
Anything less is not a “Hung Jury” or a “mistrial.” It is an acquittal. Jurors should not be forced to change their decision in order to reach an artificial unanimity. This will allow them to maintain their integrity.
2. Jury Selection
End stacking the jury, which is actually taught in U.S. “Law Schools”
Procedure:
Judge will ask prospective jurors if they know either lawyer, or the plaintiff, or the defendant. Anyone who does will be dismissed.
The Judge will also ask prospective jurors if they are prejudiced for or against the plaintiff or defendant to such an extent that they will be unable to provide a just verdict based on the evidence. Anyone who answers in the affirmative will be dismissed.
Additionally, each lawyer receives 2 peremptory challenges only.
3. Bail Reform
Although the Constitution forbids the institution of excessive bail, another strategy used by the prosecution is to keep a defendant who can’t make bail in jail indefinitely ‘awaiting trial.’ “Excessive Bail” is any amount a defendant cannot reasonably afford. Therefore, limits should be in place.
If a defendant is unable to make bail after two weeks, the bail is excessive and should be cut in half. If the defendant is still unable to make bail after an additional two weeks, it should be cut in half again. This will make sure that excessive bail cannot be imposed and will guarantee the defendant’s right to a jury trial.
The other extreme, the abolition of bail, is also unacceptable. These simple changes will create the basis for a just system to replace the “Judicial System as Cash Cow” that we have now.
One final addition will be necessary.
4. “Loser Pays”
If he brought the suit
In the English Legal System, the loser is responsible for the winning party’s legal costs, including attorney’s fees. This is an excellent way to get rid of frivolous and/or meritless lawsuits, but it needs one small improvement.
The improvement is to institute “Loser Pays,” but only if he brought the suit. This is an improvement on the English system of “Loser Pays,” since it eliminates the advantage a wealthy party would otherwise hold.