Euler Posted March 17, 2023 at 04:36 AM Share Posted March 17, 2023 at 04:36 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunuser17 Posted March 17, 2023 at 05:53 AM Share Posted March 17, 2023 at 05:53 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumak_from_arfcom Posted March 17, 2023 at 06:51 AM Share Posted March 17, 2023 at 06:51 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted March 17, 2023 at 08:51 AM Share Posted March 17, 2023 at 08:51 AM (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davel501 Posted March 17, 2023 at 08:56 AM Share Posted March 17, 2023 at 08:56 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
springfield shooter Posted March 17, 2023 at 12:40 PM Share Posted March 17, 2023 at 12:40 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunuser17 Posted March 17, 2023 at 02:55 PM Share Posted March 17, 2023 at 02:55 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted March 17, 2023 at 03:00 PM Share Posted March 17, 2023 at 03:00 PM 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
springfield shooter Posted March 17, 2023 at 03:31 PM Share Posted March 17, 2023 at 03:31 PM Are issues of constitutional interpretation even open to a jury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted March 18, 2023 at 12:13 AM Share Posted March 18, 2023 at 12:13 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
springfield shooter Posted March 18, 2023 at 01:57 PM Share Posted March 18, 2023 at 01:57 PM Thanks for the insight Todd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunuser17 Posted March 18, 2023 at 08:14 PM Share Posted March 18, 2023 at 08:14 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now