People v. State

fairly undermining public confidence in the administration of justice
Subscribe

“[T]he Court of Appeals set aside the conviction on the grounds of insufficient evidence. We have accepted jurisdiction to reinstate the judgment.”

November 23, 2011 By: John Kindley Category: Consensus, Judges, War on Drugs

For possession of marijuana. The criminalization of which is itself criminal.

The Indiana Supreme Court seems to be reinstating convictions a hell of a lot lately.

In a just criminal justice system, a system which required of judges the same consensus we require of jurors, an “acquittal” at any step of the appellate process would end the defendant’s Jeopardy.

It’s only natural for judges employed by the State to believe in the State and its works more than your average bear. I wonder whether, by the same psychological logic, judges invested with more power by the State are even bigger believers than judges invested with less.

Leave a Reply

*

  • "[T]here is just nothing wrong with telling the American people the truth." - Allen v. United States

  • Lysander Spooner

    Henry George

    Harriet Tubman

    Sitting Bull

    Angelus Silesius

    Smedley Butler

    Rose Wilder Lane

    Albert Jay Nock

    Dora Marsden

    Leo Tolstoy

    Henry David Thoreau

    John Brown

    Karl Hess

    Levi Coffin

    Max Stirner

    Dorothy Day

    Ernst Jünger

    Thomas Paine