I've had many conversations about jurisprudence and what's 'right and wrong' with people; jury nullification seems to be something that most aren't even aware of (except as one of 'those weirdo sovereign citizen' things) and I've never heard of anyone ever having jury nullification mentioned in jury instructions.Where was jury nullification when needed? It would have been the right thing to do.
After his completely bogus arrest and [Strike]persecution[/Strike] prosecution, C.J was eventually convicted of the equally bogus "interfering with public duties" on Nov. 20, 2013, which in the state of Texas, is a Class B misdemeanor.
Any misdemeanor conviction greater than a Class C, which is the equivalent of a traffic citation, requires a five-year wait before one is eligible to acquire (or reacquire as the case may be) the government-approved permission slip known as the Texas License to Carry. So far as I am aware, C.J. has never carried a firearm in violation of any state or federal statute.
Do the math and carry on.
Better a "pleading" wife than a vindictive one.No eventually whatsoever at his timely conducted trial, with counsel of his choice representing him, a jury of his peers found him guilty of Texas statute ~ tis the way in this country!
Newspeek articles state class A.
Come on now C.J. you did the crime, you took the ride, your 15yo son recorded the event, you publicized ithe event nationally, you got good counsel, you got found guilty by your peers, so your wife pleads for LENIENCY over a misdemeanor charge? REALLY!
Before the jury came to their conclusion, they first had to listen to more testimony from character witnesses for both the state and defense, including Grisham's wife.
Emily Grisham gave the most emotional testimony when she pleaded with the jury to be lenient in what sentence they chose for her husband, while the prosecution called an investigator who tracked Grisham's online activity following the incident and said that he was using the case only to gain publicity for his gun rights activism.
The prosecution only called two witnesses to testify for the punishment phase of the trial with that investigator telling the jury that Grisham had solicited thousands of dollars online to help support his case, and he also said that the only reason Grisham posted the cell phone video of the incident was to promote his case and help fight his charge.
Along with Ms. Grisham, the defense called several of Grisham's close friends to testify on his behalf in hopes of persuading the jury to not give him the maximum $2,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail.
How did Harry state it, ‘Legend in his own mind!’ Oh with a pleading wife....
That same month, Grisham used strong language to come out against a bill that aimed to make violence against police officers and judges a hate crime.
Grisham wrote in a comment below the post, "They should all be lined up and executed.”
she pleaded with the jury to be lenient in what sentence they chose for her husband, while the prosecution called an investigator who tracked Grisham's online activity following the incident and said that he was using the case only to gain publicity for his gun rights activism
Please explain the post, the purpose.
My comments are based on a compilation of YouTube videos posted from jacks channel and other activist YouTube channels. Those channels show video of the Olmos Park and Leon Valley police violations of Jack's Rights and other people's rights.Sure would not had gotten that explanation out of the youtube posting.