Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

OA56: Jury Secrecy and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (Patreon)

Published:
2017-03-31 02:54:34
Imported:
2022-10

Downloads

Content

 

In today's episode, we look at a recent Supreme Court decision that could have wide-ranging effects on future trials.

We begin, however, by "Breakin' Down the Law" regarding House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes.  Did he just violate the law Republicans kept trying to insist applied to Hillary Clinton's emails?  (Yes.)

In our main segment, we delve into a recent Supreme Court decision, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, in which the Court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial means that jurors must be free to report blatant racial bias in otherwise-private jury deliberations, even if the law says otherwise.  How the Court came down on this issue is also reflective of the split on the Supreme Court between the originalist justices and the mainstream ones.

Next, long-time friend of the show Eric Brewer returns with a question about felon voting rights.

Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #17 that asks about the common law behind "as is" used cars.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)!

Recent Appearances:

Andrew and Thomas were guests on Eiynah's podcast, Polite Conversations, Panel Discussion #6 talking about liberals vs. conservatives on free speech.  Give it a listen!

Show Notes & Links

  1. Here's the story on Devin Nunes's disclosures of confidential intelligence briefings to the press and to White House flacks.
  2. And this is the text of 18 U.S.C. § 793(f)(1), which is indeed the same statute Republicans sought to use against Hillary Clinton.  This counts as irony, right?
  3. And finally, this is the Supreme Court's decision in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Comments

Anonymous

Thanks for this TTTBE question - I suggested an explanation of "as is" for the Thomas Knows the Best Words episode. Since we're not using any state lemon laws in the question, I think the answer is D. "As is" = I could've put the thing together with Elmer's glue and popsicle sticks, but you can't sue me because I warned you. The problem is that I don't think most people realize that "as is" is a disclaimer of all warranties, even the implied warrant of merchantability.

Anonymous

"No taxation without representation" was kind of bullshit even when it was first used during the revolution. Almost nobody in _England_ had a vote at the time. The idea that some colonials living half a world away would be able to vote in parliamentary elections was laughable.

Anonymous
>>4528324

I suspect that's very true. However, as an argument it makes a lot of sense. If people are required to pay taxes, then they ought to have a say in who runs the government and how they run it.