Requested Jury Trial and judge said he was acting as jury. How is this legal?

[crastacruz]

North Carolina criminal speeding citation

Decided to fight a ticket and after much resistance from the judge and being threatened with arrest multiple times all while maintaining a respectful demeanor and a completely legal stance, I was forced to enter a plea. After this I requested a jury trial with concern that I would not be getting a fair trial being as the state employs both the prosecutor, "plaintiff", and the presiding judge, the judge stated that I had this right but that the state of North Carolina has stated that he could act as the jury in this case.

I have been unable to find any documentation in the NC statutes on criminal procedure verifying this. Is this true, and if so, can you someone provide me some direction to where this is stated?

Thanks

 

[justalayman]

I can't cite you anything more than my opinion at the moment but that opinion would be: BS


what he is describing is not a trial by jury but a bench trial. Now, if he said the state allows the court to substitute a bench trial for a jury trial in your sort of situation, that may well be but he is mistaken in claiming he can stand in for the jury in a jury trial.



what is the specific charge. That can make a difference in many situations.

 

[FlyingRon]

Agreed. While you may or may not be eligible for a jury trial, the judge can NEVER be a jury. While the statement was flip and probably irrelevant. If a judge ever did try to act as jury, it would certainly be an appealable error and frankly, also gives great question as to the judge's qualifications to be on the bench at all.

 

[crastacruz]

Thanks so much for the replies. The charge was speeding in excess of 15mph over.

I certainly clarified his stance for the record as well to be sure it was recorded. In addition to this, during the cross examination of the officer, he entered in objections to my questions. When I asked on who's behalf he was objecting he ignored the question and from then on just said sustained and stopped me instead of objection with no input from the prosecution.

I was planning on making an official complaint as well as appealing but I want the court transcript so I can quote accurately. Any advice on filing the appeal or getting the transcript.

 

[TigerD]

North Carolina criminal speeding citation

Decided to fight a ticket and after much resistance from the judge and being threatened with arrest multiple times all while maintaining a respectful demeanor and a completely legal stance, I was forced to enter a plea.

Let me guess, you refused to plead because the flag had gold trim, or because you feel you have a right to "travel" or because you withdrew your consent to be governed by this government, or because the social contract lacks consideration and is void?

After this I requested a jury trial with concern that I would not be getting a fair trial being as the state employs both the prosecutor, "plaintiff", and the presiding judge, the judge stated that I had this right but that the state of North Carolina has stated that he could act as the jury in this case.

It is a speeding ticket. If you pull 12 people out of their lives for a speeding ticket, they are going to put the boots to you.

I have been unable to find any documentation in the NC statutes on criminal procedure verifying this. Is this true, and if so, can you someone provide me some direction to where this is stated?

Have you checked the sovereign citizen listserv?

DC

Thanks so much for the replies. The charge was speeding in excess of 15mph over.

I certainly clarified his stance for the record as well to be sure it was recorded. In addition to this, during the cross examination of the officer, he entered in objections to my questions. When I asked on who's behalf he was objecting he ignored the question and from then on just said sustained and stopped me instead of objection with no input from the prosecution.

I was planning on making an official complaint as well as appealing but I want the court transcript so I can quote accurately. Any advice on filing the appeal or getting the transcript.

The judge has every right to manage his courtroom - that includes controlling you. If you want to be a lawyer, go to law school.

 

[Ohiogal]

Thanks so much for the replies. The charge was speeding in excess of 15mph over.

I certainly clarified his stance for the record as well to be sure it was recorded. In addition to this, during the cross examination of the officer, he entered in objections to my questions. When I asked on who's behalf he was objecting he ignored the question and from then on just said sustained and stopped me instead of objection with no input from the prosecution.

I was planning on making an official complaint as well as appealing but I want the court transcript so I can quote accurately. Any advice on filing the appeal or getting the transcript.

You are in over your head. The only way to appeal is to get the transcript and if you don't know how to do that, then you need to hire an attorney to represent you for the appeal.

 

[Ohiogal]

North Carolina criminal speeding citation

Decided to fight a ticket and after much resistance from the judge and being threatened with arrest multiple times all while maintaining a respectful demeanor and a completely legal stance, I was forced to enter a plea. After this I requested a jury trial with concern that I would not be getting a fair trial being as the state employs both the prosecutor, "plaintiff", and the presiding judge, the judge stated that I had this right but that the state of North Carolina has stated that he could act as the jury in this case.

I have been unable to find any documentation in the NC statutes on criminal procedure verifying this. Is this true, and if so, can you someone provide me some direction to where this is stated?

Thanks

You are kidding right? The state employs the prosecutor, plaintiff and presiding judge? You are aware that they work for different branches of government, correct? Who do you think the "plaintiff" is in this case?


http://www.johnstoncountylaw.com/nc_ticket_law_faqs

Can I fight my speeding ticket with a trial?
Yes. You can always fight your traffic ticket, either by negotiation with the Office of the District Attorney, or by trial. In most circumstances, a trial for speeding is held in District Court where a Judge, and not a jury, determines guilt or responsibility in the case. If tried and convicted, you may be convicted of your traffic ticket as charged, or some lesser offense as the Court may determine. For example, if you received a speeding ticket for 53 mph in a 35 mph zone, and had a trial on your ticket, if found guilty your conviction may be for 53 mph in a 35 mph zone. The Judge is under no duty or obligation to find you guilty of a lesser included offense, such as speeding 44 mph in a 35 zone.

Speeding tickets are not entitled to a jury trial. They are bench trials. Why did you think otherwise?
You think the law of North Carolina doesn't apply to you? If not, why not?

 

[justalayman]

from: http://www.ncdistrictattorney.org/faq.html

Q: What is the difference between District Court and Superior Court?
A: District Courts, can be divided into four categories, civil, criminal, juvenile and magistrate. Civil cases such as divorce, custody, child support and cases involving less than $10,000 are heard in District Court, along with criminal cases involving misdemeanors and infractions. The trial of a criminal case in District Court is always without a jury. The District Court also hears juvenile cases involving children under the age of 16 who are delinquent and children under the age of 18 who are undisciplined, dependent, neglected or abused. Magistrates accept guilty pleas for minor misdemeanors, accept guilty pleas for traffic violations and accept waivers of trial for worthless-check cases. In civil cases, the magistrate is authorized to try small claims involving up to $5,000 including landlord eviction cases.

All felony criminal cases, civil cases involving more than $10,000 and misdemeanor and infraction appeals from District Court are tried in Superior Court. A jury of 12 hears the criminal cases. In the civil cases,juries are often waived.

without digging into the actual rules of procedure or statutes, most everything I am finding states you are not allowed a jury trial at the first trial. It is automatically a bench trial. A few places have spoken to a right of a trial de novo if you are found guilty at the bench trial. I don't know if you have an automatic right to appeal or if there is some need for valid basis for an appeal. I suspect it is an automatic right though based on the information I have seen.

so, what I suspect the judge said is something like:

in this court I am the jury.


while you can twist that a bit and read it that he is improperly denying you a jury trial, you can also read it that he is telling you you do not get a jury of 12 but he is the only thing resembling a jury you are going to get in his court. I suspect the latter.

hey crastacruz;

if you are worried about the judge not being impartial because he is on the state's payroll, what about the fact the jurors are paid by the state for their services? Don't you think that is going to sway them to act in favor of the state?

 

[FlyingRon]

You ARE forced to plead. If you dither about it, it is generally assumed you want to plead not guilty. A judge will get testy if you try to do anything other than enter a plea and indicate how the trial would proceed.

The judge is quite right to stop you if your cross-examination does not meet the requirements for cross-examination. Cross is only to ask the witness questions about his direct testimony. It's not to argue with him, it's not to introduce your own evidence or theories, etc...

Speeding 15 over is a misdemeanor (class 2) but in District court there is no jury. You hear the case there, if you win, you win. If you lose, THEN you tell the judge (within ten days) you want a appeal for a jury trial. Your case is then heard in superior court. You don't need a transcript (and there likely isn't one to be had) because at that point, the case is heard de novo (from scratch).

Note well, that superior court isn't anywhere near as informal as district court. The judge is going to be even less tolerant of your shenanigans.

So your only option at this point is to home you've not blown your ten day time frame to make the appeal.

 

[Ohiogal]

You ARE forced to plead. If you dither about it, it is generally assumed you want to plead not guilty. A judge will get testy if you try to do anything other than enter a plea and indicate how the trial would proceed.

The judge is quite right to stop you if your cross-examination does not meet the requirements for cross-examination. Cross is only to ask the witness questions about his direct testimony. It's not to argue with him, it's not to introduce your own evidence or theories, etc...

Speeding 15 over is a misdemeanor (class 2) but in District court there is no jury. You hear the case there, if you win, you win. If you lose, THEN you tell the judge (within ten days) you want a appeal for a jury trial. Your case is then heard in superior court. You don't need a transcript (and there likely isn't one to be had) because at that point, the case is heard de novo (from scratch).

Note well, that superior court isn't anywhere near as informal as district court. The judge is going to be even less tolerant of your shenanigans.

So your only option at this point is to home you've not blown your ten day time frame to make the appeal.

The bolded is incorrect. That is not what cross exam is. You can question about anything relevant on cross examination. It is procedurally done differently (leading questions and the like) but you can question about anything that is relevant and not just about questions asked on direct.

 

[justalayman]

I hate it when y'all make me go Wikipedia on y'all's hind end:

In the United States federal courts, a cross-examining attorney is typically not permitted to ask questions that do not pertain to the testimony offered during direct examination, but most state courts do permit a lawyer to cross-examine a witness on matters not raised during direct examination.

apparently it is going to depend what court you are in.


so now, can't we all just get along??

 

[Ohiogal]

I hate it when y'all make me go Wikipedia on y'all's hind end:




apparently it is going to depend what court you are in.


so now, can't we all just get along??

Wikipedia? REALLY? I am in state courts every day doing direct and cross exam.

 

[CdwJava]

North Carolina criminal speeding citation

Decided to fight a ticket and after much resistance from the judge and being threatened with arrest multiple times all while maintaining a respectful demeanor and a completely legal stance, I was forced to enter a plea.

I seriously doubt that had you been respectful and adhering to the rules you would have been threatened with arrest multiple times.

So, what was it you argued with the judge about before entering a plea? Did you refuse to acknowledge the court's jurisdiction? Were the questions you asked the officer irrelevant to the case at hand, such as his oath of office?

After this I requested a jury trial with concern that I would not be getting a fair trial being as the state employs both the prosecutor, "plaintiff", and the presiding judge, the judge stated that I had this right but that the state of North Carolina has stated that he could act as the jury in this case.

I have been unable to find any documentation in the NC statutes on criminal procedure verifying this. Is this true, and if so, can you someone provide me some direction to where this is stated?

From what I read, cases in the District Court are tried before a judge for a misdemeanor or traffic offense. You can appeal to a Superior Court where there is apparently the option for a jury trial. However, the right to appeal can be limited, and there may be reasons you will have to cite in order to appeal. So, you'd best look into the issue right away - and it might be wise to pay an attorney.

 

[justalayman]

Wikipedia? REALLY? I am in state courts every day doing direct and cross exam.

ya, I know, but without researching tons of different state's rules, it was a short and sweet statement giving a somewhat reasonable answer to the question at hand.

but for something more specific, how about the federal rules of evidence rule 611

(b) Scope of Cross-Examination. Cross-examination should not go beyond the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the witness’s credibility. The court may allow inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination.

 

[Ohiogal]

ya, I know, but without researching tons of different state's rules, it was a short and sweet statement giving a somewhat reasonable answer to the question at hand.

but for something more specific, how about the federal rules of evidence rule 611

That is federal court which is different than state court and does not include traffic court. Think Bankruptcy and federal crimes. LOL. Just giving you a hard time though. I don't practice in federal court. Not my cup of wine.