• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Right to trial by jury?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

alicia27

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Oklahoma

My fiancee was arrested on a misdemeanor city warrant of furnishing alcohol. The exact charge, from our municipal codes follows:

Sec. 15-305. Furnishing alcoholic beverages.
(a) No person shall sell, deliver, give, share, dispense or furnish intoxicating beverages or low-point beer to any person under the age of twenty-one (21).


Ok, here's the situation... my son gave him a ride to the liquor store to buy some alcohol for a get-together we (fiancee and I) were having over Memorial Day Weekend. They came back to the house, and my son's friend had to go check in with his mom. The alcohol was still in the trunk, momentarily forgotten about... until the boys got pulled over. The boys explained that the alcohol belonged to my fiancee, but the cops kept on them and scared the crap out of them. The alcohol NEVER left the trunk, and remained unopened. My fiancee started thinking the boys had run off with it, until he found out they were pulled over!

So, he gets arrested a couple weeks ago. It has been a nightmare.... these city laws are so different from any I have ever heard! He was taken to the police station, and sat in an office, out in the public, with just some secretaries setting around, with free access to a free telephone, etc., not handcuffed, no officers standing around watching him... it was weird! lol It took me about half an hour to get there, so by the time I arrived, a judge had arrived to start hearing cases, so he was sent to go before the judge, since I had not had time to bond him out. The judge set a bond amount, and he was released to go, agreeing to make payments with a court officer, for what he was originally pulled over for, driving without a license.

We went in to make a payment on the fine, and the court officer noticed that there was a bond, so told us we needed to get that taken care of this week. I asked lots of questions, as I have learned to do, when it comes to any legal affairs. One thing has me really confused... if we pay the entire bond ourselves... we only get it returned if he is found not guilty. While we are confident that is what should happen, I know how small towns tend to work, as well, and know things can happen that aren't exactly right. The other problem is, we don't have a lot of money, so hiring an attorney is a problem right now. I thought bonds were supposed to be to guarantee appearance??? Only one bondsman in our city takes city bonds, but we would still end up paying half of it ourselves, and, obviously, we would not get any of that returned, even if found not guilty.

Ok, now for the part that relates to my title... here, in Norman, OK, they're telling us that if we were not to post bond, for one reason or another... even if he chose to go to jail to await his court date... we would not have the right to a jury trial! Ok, I know if you go though a trial, you are expected to pay court costs, that's not the problem. My problem is in the fact that they will deny your right to a jury trial if you choose not to bond out of jail??? Isn't that one of our major constitutional rights... the right to be judged by a jury of our peers??? This entire situation is just blowing my mind!

My last question relates to this... we are not even being allowed the opportunity to speak to a prosecuting attorney or judge to request that the charges be dropped, due to a lack of evidence. It seems as though all they are concerned about is getting the money that they can charge for taking you to court.

Any suggestions at all would be very greatly appreciated. As I said, this is so different from any legal system I have ever dealt with.
 


lwpat

Senior Member
You do not automatically have the right to a jury trial and a lot of jurisdictions make the penalties so that one is not required. If the jail term is for less than six months or only a fine, the state does not have to give you a jury trial.
 

alicia27

Junior Member
Wow, I was totally unaware of that! Thanks for letting me know.

Would you recommend fighting this charge, or just sucking it up and taking a fine?
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
You do not automatically have the right to a jury trial and a lot of jurisdictions make the penalties so that one is not required. If the jail term is for less than six months or only a fine, the state does not have to give you a jury trial.
A trial that ends in jail is hard to argue that it is not a criminal trial and the sixth and forteenth ammendements make a jury trial an option.

A non-criminal "civil" citation for a small sum can just go by any "due process."
 

seniorjudge

Senior Member
...
Isn't that one of our major constitutional rights... the right to be judged by a jury of our peers???
....
This urban legend ranks right up there with "circumstantial evidence is no good" and "you can see the Great Wall of China from the moon."
 

alicia27

Junior Member
A trial that ends in jail is hard to argue that it is not a criminal trial and the sixth and forteenth ammendements make a jury trial an option.

A non-criminal "civil" citation for a small sum can just go by any "due process."

Is this not a "criminal" offense? He was arrested for it. I'm confused, and really appreciate all of you offering input. It looks like it would be cheaper for us to just have him plead guilty and pay a fine, rather than paying a non-returnable bond and then possibly the fine and court costs as well, but we are afraid of his having this on his record.
 

seniorjudge

Senior Member
You do not automatically have the right to a jury trial and a lot of jurisdictions make the penalties so that one is not required. If the jail term is for less than six months or only a fine, the state does not have to give you a jury trial.
This is an accurate statement of the law. I don't agree with it, but it is accurate.


Is this not a "criminal" offense? He was arrested for it. I'm confused, and really appreciate all of you offering input. It looks like it would be cheaper for us to just have him plead guilty and pay a fine, rather than paying a non-returnable bond and then possibly the fine and court costs as well, but we are afraid of his having this on his record.
A lot of states have "quasi-criminal" statutes where you don't get full constitutional rights.

My own personal opinion is that if you could go to jail for ONE DAY you should have a jury trial!
 

>Charlotte<

Lurker
Alicia said: Wow, I was totally unaware of that! Thanks for letting me know. Would you recommend fighting this charge, or just sucking it up and taking a fine?
I'm not sure that was directed at me, but because she wrote that right after my post I'll assume it may have been, and should clarify that I'm not saying you're not entitled to a jury (which apparently depends upon the facts of your case.) I'm just saying that the you're not entitled to a jury of your peers.

That's sort of a knee-jerk reaction with me because when someone starts talking about having a jury of ones peers, it often evolves into the argument that it wasn't a fair trial because the jury was not made up of what they consider to be their peers.

The "jury of our peers" thing is just one of those things that everybody says, so everybody thinks it's true, and it's not.

Sorry, this is just me being picky.
 

seniorjudge

Senior Member
I'm not sure that was directed at me, but because she wrote that right after my post I'll assume it may have been, and should clarify that I'm not saying you're not entitled to a jury (which apparently depends upon the facts of your case.) I'm just saying that the you're not entitled to a jury of your peers.

That's sort of a knee-jerk reaction with me because when someone starts talking about having a jury of ones peers, it often evolves into the argument that it wasn't a fair trial because the jury was not made up of what they consider to be their peers.

The "jury of our peers" thing is just one of those things that everybody says, so everybody thinks it's true, and it's not.

Sorry, this is just me being picky.
Amen and amen.

...
The two most important clauses of Magna Carta are among the legal clauses. Clause 40 promises, “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.” This clause establishes the principle of equal access to the courts for all citizens without exorbitant fees. In clause 39, the king promises, “No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” This clause establishes that the king would follow legal procedure before he punished someone. Historians have debated at length the meaning in 1215 of “by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land,” and who exactly was covered by the term “free man.” By the later 14th century, however, statutes interpreting the Magna Carta equated “judgment of peers” with trial by jury (which did not exist in criminal cases in 1215). Other statutes rephrased “by the law of the land” as “by due process of law.” These later statutes also substituted “no one” or “no man of any sort or condition” for “no free man,” which extended the protections of the clause to all the king’s subjects. These protections were cited in many founding documents of the American colonies and were incorporated into the Constitution of the United States.
....


http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761565830

At the time the Magna Carta was written, the word "peer" meant a nobleman (duke or marquis or earl or viscount or baron) who is a member of the British peerage and NOT a person who is of equal standing with another in a group.
 

lwpat

Senior Member
My last question relates to this... we are not even being allowed the opportunity to speak to a prosecuting attorney or judge to request that the charges be dropped, due to a lack of evidence. It seems as though all they are concerned about is getting the money that they can charge for taking you to court.
This is probably a true statement.

Why were they stopped to begin with? Did they give the officer permission to open the trunk? I would talk to an attorney. This will go on his record and could cause problems later down the road.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top