Help Ward Bird of Moultonborough

Puck · 11-23-2010, 10:20 AM

This was a jury trial, right? Twelve people listened to this case being argued and unanimously decided this gentlleman was guilty of criminal threatening. The thing I can't figure out is where the heck did they find 12 peple who thought this was criminal threatening? We can all scream at the top of our lungs about the law, and the judge, and the attorneys, but if this was a jury trial then 12 other NH citizens made the decision to to return a guilty verdict. How on earth did not one of them say "hmm... I think something iis wrong here?"

Was this somehow not a jury trial?

TheProfessor · 11-24-2010, 01:51 PM

The judge reads the law to the jurors and states to jurors that the law must be followed. Not individual opinions of jurors - but the laws.

The law apparently in this case seems to have gone too far - and no one noticed until this case.

Apparently, the law is going to be changed if legislature agrees.

RailroadJoe · 11-24-2010, 04:32 PM

Just because it is the law, does not make it right. Remember Germany in the 1930's

Yosemite Sam · 12-03-2010, 06:29 PM

Below is the link to the video of THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE hearing about the verdict of THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE V. Ward Bird.

Notice how the Supreme Court Justices ask questions about the law/laws that sent Bird to jail. If they couldn’t understand them how did the jury figure them out?????

http://www.courts.nh.gov/pastsession...20090372va.asx

fatlazyless · 12-03-2010, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

Below is the link to the video of THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE hearing about the verdict of THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE V. Ward Bird.

Notice how the Supreme Court Justices ask questions about the law/laws that sent Bird to jail. If they couldn’t understand them how did the jury figure them out?????

http://www.courts.nh.gov/pastsession...20090372va.asx

Terrific public service of you to find this video/audio and post a working link here.....now if only my 'puter had working audio. Wonder if either the Laconia or Meredith libraries have working audio on their public 'puters?

And, wonder what is the length of this State of NH vs Ward Bird video/audio?

Yosemite Sam · 12-03-2010, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Great public service of you to find this video/audio and post a working link here.....now if only my 'puter had working audio. Wonder if either the Laconia or Meredith libraries have working audio on their public 'puters?

And, wonder what is the length of this State of NH vs Ward Bird video/audio?

It is 31 minutes long.

Do you have Headphone jacks on your computer?
Go to your favorite walmart store and buy some speakers that hook to your headphone jacks.

Have fun!!

RailroadJoe · 12-03-2010, 07:48 PM

I just watched the video of the Supreme Court hearing and realize the stupidity of our law. Over and over it was satated "A non deadly force" yet they ruled it okay. Too bad we can not have people who look at justice being logical and sensible.
I still can not understand why the woman got away with out a trial

CTYankee · 11-24-2010, 05:11 PM

It appears that Mr. Bird is being punished by a law that won't be found on the books. In criminal law, the "law of unintended consequences" often results in sentences that are disproportionate to the crime. I'll explain. Legislatures often respond to "hot button" issues by crafting statutes that permit or even mandate enhanced sentences when the criminal act includes certain "aggravating" factors. Often these statutes prevent judges from exercising discretion when fashioning sentences. It appears that Mr. Bird is caught in just such a situation. In his case a gun was part of the fact pattern. The New Hampshire Legislature previously enacted a law making this an aggravating factor. This resulted in a sentence way out of proportion to the crime. This is an issue that has been hotly debated for many years among academics, the judiciary and the criminal bar. What starts out as a "tough on crime" law ends up snaring average citizens in a legal nightmare.
In my view, in Mr. Birds case the prosecutor should have exercised her discretion by charging him in a way that would not yield such a draconian result.

Heaven · 11-29-2010, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puck

This was a jury trial, right? Twelve people listened to this case being argued and unanimously decided this gentlleman was guilty of criminal threatening. The thing I can't figure out is where the heck did they find 12 peple who thought this was criminal threatening? We can all scream at the top of our lungs about the law, and the judge, and the attorneys, but if this was a jury trial then 12 other NH citizens made the decision to to return a guilty verdict. How on earth did not one of them say "hmm... I think something iis wrong here?"

Was this somehow not a jury trial?

I think one would have had to be on the jury, or at least in the courtroom, before making a judgement.

11-24-2010, 05:11 PM	#8
CTYankee Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Guilford, CT and Bear Island, NH Posts: 29 Thanks: 486 Thanked 20 Times in 9 Posts	Unintended Consequences It appears that Mr. Bird is being punished by a law that won't be found on the books. In criminal law, the "law of unintended consequences" often results in sentences that are disproportionate to the crime. I'll explain. Legislatures often respond to "hot button" issues by crafting statutes that permit or even mandate enhanced sentences when the criminal act includes certain "aggravating" factors. Often these statutes prevent judges from exercising discretion when fashioning sentences. It appears that Mr. Bird is caught in just such a situation. In his case a gun was part of the fact pattern. The New Hampshire Legislature previously enacted a law making this an aggravating factor. This resulted in a sentence way out of proportion to the crime. This is an issue that has been hotly debated for many years among academics, the judiciary and the criminal bar. What starts out as a "tough on crime" law ends up snaring average citizens in a legal nightmare. In my view, in Mr. Birds case the prosecutor should have exercised her discretion by charging him in a way that would not yield such a draconian result.

11-23-2010, 10:20 AM	#1
Puck Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Central NH Posts: 97 Thanks: 0 Thanked 78 Times in 20 Posts	This was a jury trial, right? Twelve people listened to this case being argued and unanimously decided this gentlleman was guilty of criminal threatening. The thing I can't figure out is where the heck did they find 12 peple who thought this was criminal threatening? We can all scream at the top of our lungs about the law, and the judge, and the attorneys, but if this was a jury trial then 12 other NH citizens made the decision to to return a guilty verdict. How on earth did not one of them say "hmm... I think something iis wrong here?" Was this somehow not a jury trial?

11-24-2010, 01:51 PM	#2
TheProfessor Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,140 Thanks: 17 Thanked 349 Times in 211 Posts	The judge reads the law to the jurors and states to jurors that the law must be followed. Not individual opinions of jurors - but the laws. The law apparently in this case seems to have gone too far - and no one noticed until this case. Apparently, the law is going to be changed if legislature agrees.

11-24-2010, 04:32 PM	#3
RailroadJoe Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 620 Thanks: 259 Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts	Just because it is the law, does not make it right. Remember Germany in the 1930's

12-03-2010, 06:29 PM	#4
Yosemite Sam Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Lakes Region Posts: 395 Thanks: 81 Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts	Below is the link to the video of THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE hearing about the verdict of THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE V. Ward Bird. Notice how the Supreme Court Justices ask questions about the law/laws that sent Bird to jail. If they couldn’t understand them how did the jury figure them out????? http://www.courts.nh.gov/pastsession...20090372va.asx

12-03-2010, 07:48 PM	#7
RailroadJoe Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 620 Thanks: 259 Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts	I just watched the video of the Supreme Court hearing and realize the stupidity of our law. Over and over it was satated "A non deadly force" yet they ruled it okay. Too bad we can not have people who look at justice being logical and sensible. I still can not understand why the woman got away with out a trial

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CTYankee For This Useful Post:
jeffatsquam (11-24-2010), wifi (11-24-2010)