Barnett v. Raoul (3:23-cv-00209) (S.D. Ill. 2023) - NSSF Gun/Mag Ban

[Euler]

On 3/16/2023 at 11:33 PM, Upholder said:

I'm not sure of the answers but NYSPRA v Bruen had no trial.  The various cases in front of the Federal court in California have had no trials..  I would not expect a Jury trial to be warranted here.

 

Even if either or both sides request a jury trial, they'll also both file lots of motions for summary judgement (i.e., no oral arguments on anything but motions, no trial). What goes to trial is whatever the judge leaves for trial, which might be nothing.

[gunuser17]

I don't see how fact determination could be referred to a special master when there is a jury demand.  That would require both sides to agree  and essentially waive the jury demand.  A special master is usually just a substitute for a judge in a bench trial when the judge cannot get to the case quickly enough for the parties.  And the judge would still have to affirm any by the master.  The judge could appoint his own "expert" but that still doesn't resolve any factual disputes.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

 

   If somehow the judge grants the request for a jury, then they only need a few non-gun owners.  I think this is a hail mary to get around the strict-scrutiny test of Bruen and other tests like dangerous AND unusual that jurors won't understand.   If the jury gets to decide what is or isn't factual like...  is an AR15 dangerous AND unusual, then we are in for it. 

My friend who is a lawyer said the request for a jury trial should not be granted on anything, but dumber things have happened.  He also thinks this could be a way to set up a future appeal.  The state could argue that it should have gotten a jury trial for something in the hopes the case gets sent back down.

 

He also said, if they get a jury, other states will follow that tactic.    

 

 

[Flynn]

On 3/17/2023 at 12:53 AM, gunuser17 said:

I don't see how fact determination could be referred to a special master when there is a jury demand.  That would require both sides to agree  and essentially waive the jury demand.  A special master is usually just a substitute for a judge in a bench trial when the judge cannot get to the case quickly enough for the parties.  And the judge would still have to affirm any by the master.  The judge could appoint his own "expert" but that still doesn't resolve any factual disputes.

 

As Euler said "What goes to trial is whatever the judge leaves for trial, which might be nothing." if the court appoints a special master and they deal with any questions the judge doesn't want to deal with during 'pre-trial' that in turn leaves nothing for trial, there is no trial and thus no need for a jury.

 

In a case like this the judge is likely to rule on the Constitutionality of the law(s) themselves on a summary judgement motion, if the judge rules it unconstitutional on a summar judgment there is nothing left for trial as the law is mooted and the case is over.

 

As for appeals, the losing side is almost certainly going to appeal anyway, so this is just the first battle in the war, it would be great to win every battle (and we should) but this case is not going to be the end no matter how the court rules.

Edited March 17, 2023 at 08:54 AM by Flynn

[davel501]

On 3/17/2023 at 8:51 AM, Flynn said:

 

As Euler said "What goes to trial is whatever the judge leaves for trial, which might be nothing." if the court appoints a special master and they deal with any questions the judge doesn't want to deal with during 'pre-trial' that in turn leaves nothing for trial, there is no trial and thus no need for a jury.

 

In a case like this the judge is likely to rule on the Constitutionality of the law(s) themselves on a summary judgement motion, if the judge rules it unconstitutional on a summar judgment there is nothing left for trial as the law is mooted and the case is over.

 

As for appeals, the losing side is almost certainly going to appeal anyway, so this is just the first battle in the war, it would be great to win every battle (and we should) but this case is not going to be the end no matter how the court rules.

 

Did they ask for any damages? I could see that going to a jury. 

[springfield shooter]

AR15s are not "unusual" in the Southern District of IL.

I'm just sayin'.

Ps: I'll admit if I'm wrong, but here's doubting they get a jury on the issue of constitutionality.

[gunuser17]

If the request for a jury was made within the proper time, it cannot be denied by the judge.  The more important question is whether there are any fact issues that require determination by a jury.  As noted, most of these cases in the past were determined by the judge because there were no factual issues in dispute.  However, we are in a new day requiring a different analysis today.  I have no clue whether there will be any actual factual disputes to be resolved now but I don't think that anyone can forecast the future and say that there are  no factual issues in dispute either.  

[steveTA84]

Let’s say the state gets a jury trial. That opens the door to jury intimidation during and after the case (if it doesn’t go the way the state wants). 

[springfield shooter]

Are issues of constitutional interpretation even open to a jury?

[Tvandermyde]

there isn't going to be a jury trial. they did that to slow things down. Look at the Keannelly case and they asked for directed verdict on the pleadings -- wonder why?

 

they are doing everything they can to get any other case in front of us where we have a battery of attorneys and try to get a case up with no record on our side as they flood the court with all kinds of bullpucky. 

[springfield shooter]

Thanks for the insight Todd.

[gunuser17]

You may well be right that there will be no jury trial.  But I don't see any way that a request for a jury trial would have any impact or delay on timing at this point in the case.  It simply is a request that most make in federal court at this point just to preserve that right - it can always be waived later if both sides agree.  If I remember correctly,  the defendant must make the request within 14 days of filing the answer in federal court.