The Sixth Amendment to our Constitution reads as follows, in its entirety.
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
Pretty simple, isn’t it? Sounds like an accused should have a fair trial, doesn’t it? Trial by an impartial jury sounds fair enough to me.
Where in our scared Constitution, does it say that a jury verdict has to be UNANIMOUS? It doesn’t! The Supremes, as has been recently brought out, never have a unanimous vote, and that’s the highest court in the land.
How many criminals have been set free, because a jury could not be unanimous in their votes and opinions? O.J. Simpson? Maybe a jury is race sensitive, and the defendant is of one race or another, which might make a jurist of not too bright an intellect or severe race prejudice, to declare him innocent, regardless of facts presented by the prosecution.
Jurists are not overly bright, as a general rule, but are selected by voter registration, not education, intellect, or lack of prejudice. Is logic prevalent in all of the jury?
Remember the famous film, “12 Angry Men?” Henry Fonda, gradually changed eleven men’s minds by presenting logical arguments. A wonderful movie, which everyone should watch and add to their collection.
Why should all juries be unanimous in their vote? Why shouldn’t a majority be sufficient? Why not let the judge decide what percentage of the vote will serve a case?
Then there is the Miranda warning, which has allowed endless vermin to go free, because a policeman or arresting officer didn’t recite a silly phrase when arresting or questioning a suspect?
Why is also necessary for the news media, when reporting a crime and capture of an offender, to always describe him as a “suspect?” Here’s a criminal who has done a dastardly deed in front of a dozen witnesses, or has even confessed, and he is a “suspect?” Not to me!
It seems to me that America has become infatuated with finding criminals not guilty, by using all sorts of semi-legal, semi-logical artifices, such as the Miranda warning, and a unanimous jury vote. Only my opinion by reading the Sixth Amendment!