| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1373.1 | Mazzone's List | TALLIS::DARCY | Alpha Migration Tools | Fri Apr 29 1994 13:54 | 3 |
| Interesting that judge Mazzone allowed the prosecution to bar
Irish-Americans from the jury. I'm sure that would have gone
over well if they were Jews or Blacks.
|
| 1373.2 | | NASZKO::MACDONALD | | Mon May 02 1994 16:28 | 12 |
|
Re: .1
That could well form the basis for an appeal since O'Murchu wants
at least to have the right to visit his daughter. There was a case
recently addressed by the Supreme Court on this subject if my
memory serves me, but I can't remember what the Court's judgement
was.
Steve
|
| 1373.3 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | | Mon May 02 1994 16:59 | 19 |
|
You seem quite concerned that this convicted felon, and I presume Irish
citizen, gets to see his US-resident daughter. I am more concerned for
the people killed with the weapons he purchased for the IRA, if any got
through to them from this source. I guess you're well on the way to
making a martyr out of him anyway, so there's probably little use in
talking about it but I would remind you that his daughter can visit him in
Ireland. He broke US law and is presumably being deported under US
law. As for Irish-Americans being disallowed from jury service, I'm
not sure of the legal situation on that, but if the drift here is anything
to go by we can see how it might come to pass that less emphasis be
placed on the crime and more on visitation rights. I think however that
the judge helped the IRA here, which is probably why they whisked him
off in case it becomes an issue. They should have merely asked any
Irish-Americans on the jury if they supported the IRA. The prosecution
could have dismissed those supportive. A representative sample in most
places would presumably not result in too many IRA supporters being
jurors, including those who lie about support.
|
| 1373.4 | | TALLIS::DARCY | Alpha Migration Tools | Mon May 02 1994 18:05 | 21 |
| Whether he is guilty of soliciting weapons for the IRA is not the
issue I'm raising. If he broke the law and wasn't entrapped into
soliciting weapons, then he should be sent to jail, deported, etc.
Period. End of story.
The issue I raise is discrimination of jurors. Think about it,
what if the lawyers asked a prospective juror:
"Mr. Goldstein, are you a Jew"?
"Yes Sir, I am"
"Sorry your honor, the prosecution requests this juror be removed"
Somehow I don't think this would sit too well with B'nai B'rith and
the Jewish Defense League. Why should Irish-Americans be discriminated
against by the prosecution? They shouldn't!
I am not concerned about this convicted felon. I am however concerned
about subverting the American legal process on the whims of pro British
lobbyists.
|
| 1373.5 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | | Mon May 02 1994 18:14 | 10 |
|
I think I expressed reservations about the questions raised by
juror selection in my reply.
As for the lobbyists, I think that's overdone, given that they couldn't
stop Adams from attending the NY conference (ostensibly - we all know
why he really showed up). Looks like both sides have their lobbyists,
although I'd be glad to know who the 'pro-British lobbyists' who turned
the judge's ear were in this case.
|
| 1373.6 | | TALLIS::DARCY | Alpha Migration Tools | Tue May 03 1994 11:05 | 11 |
| Well, there's no reason for Adams *not* to be allowed in the US. He has
committed no crime, ergo he should be let in.
>although I'd be glad to know who the 'pro-British lobbyists' who turned
>the judge's ear were in this case.
I would too.
There's a good article on discriminating against black jurors in the
latest Economist magazine (US version). Several years ago the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled against allowing the removal of jurors according
to race. Apparently, Judge Mazzone didn't read about that case.
|
| 1373.7 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | | Tue May 03 1994 11:28 | 5 |
|
Oh I see. You don't have any evidence of any 'pro-British lobbyists'
bending the judge's ear. You just assumed there must be some, is that
it?
|
| 1373.8 | No wonder the Feds "whisked" him away! | CTHQ::LEARY | It'sBeenALongTimeComing... | Tue May 03 1994 15:07 | 18 |
| >> Interesting that judge Mazzone allowed the prosecution to bar
>> Irish-Americans from the jury. I'm sure that would have gone
>> over well if they were Jews or Blacks.
Is this first sentence factual? Taken at face value this is an
abomination! I cannot believe that this is legal. I know nothing
of the accused or the circumstances of the case but I would believe
that the defense has ample reason to have the verdict overturned on
this "fact" alone. I'm shaking my head at this; I can't believe a
judge could get away with this travesty of justice(to me).
I'm going to call Judge Mazzone's office to find out the facts.
Again I want to make it clear that I offer no excuse or support for
the accused. The judge's actions are inexcusable!
Mike
|
| 1373.9 | | TALLIS::DARCY | Alpha Migration Tools | Tue May 03 1994 15:13 | 8 |
| It was reported in the Boston Globe several days ago. It aluded
to the fact that Murphy might appeal the case due to the judge's
allowing the prosecution to removing Irish American jurors. I'm
not sure if the prosecution simply removed anyone with an Irish
surname or if they actually asked each juror about his ancestors.
I'll try to get more information. It's strange but I remember
Mazzone serving as judge on other IRA related cases. Maybe he
is the IRA judge de facto?
|
| 1373.10 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | | Tue May 03 1994 17:06 | 5 |
|
> I'm going to call Judge Mazzone's office to find out the facts.
Good luck. Let us know what you find out.
|
| 1373.11 | | NASZKO::MACDONALD | | Tue May 10 1994 11:38 | 12 |
|
Re: .3
First I had no specific concern, I just reported the facts as reported
in the US newspapers. The only concern I have is that his conviction
be a result of due process. Barring Irish Americans from the jury
solely because they have Irish ancestry is reason to question whether
he got due process. It makes one wonder whether the prosecution was
allowed to decide his guilt and not the jury.
Steve
|
| 1373.12 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | | Tue May 10 1994 11:44 | 5 |
|
Well you said "at least the right to visit his daughter" which
signified (excessive to my point of view) concern over this felon.
Thanks for the clarification.
|
| 1373.13 | | NASZKO::MACDONALD | | Tue May 10 1994 12:49 | 15 |
|
Re: .12
> Well you said "at least the right to visit his daughter" which
> signified (excessive to my point of view) concern over this felon.
> Thanks for the clarification.
I'm only concerned that his status as a convicted felon is appropriate.
Until it is clear to me that he had a fair trial, I'm not sure.
Because of the exclusion of Irish Americans from the jury, I'm not
confident that his conviction wasn't manipulated. If not then
classifying him as a felon and deporting him is just.
Steve
|
| 1373.14 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | | Tue May 10 1994 12:55 | 4 |
|
Why would non-IA jury be rigged? I see no accusation that such jury
tampering was present.
|
| 1373.15 | | TALLIS::DARCY | Alpha Migration Tools | Tue May 10 1994 14:07 | 18 |
| Why do the prosecution need to discriminate against Irish Americans
Chris? There must be some reason why they were removing Irish
Americans from the jury.
The Supreme Court ruled several years ago that selecting jurors
on the basis of race or religion is *against* the law.
It kind of reminds me of the recent case where some white guy was
tried in Missippi? twenty years ago by an all-white jury and found not
guilty of killing a black man. [Apparently, his guilt was not in
doubt.] He was later retried *this* year by a mixed jury and found
guilty.
I've read there is a move to abandon the practice of jury selection
altogether. I'm not sure of the effects of such a move. But I think
that something more should to be done to combat jury rigging.
/g
|
| 1373.16 | | NASZKO::MACDONALD | | Tue May 10 1994 14:21 | 17 |
|
Re: .14
> Why would non-IA jury be rigged? I see no accusation that such jury
> tampering was present.
Because the assumption seems to be that anyone of Irish-American
descent would undoubtedly be sympathetic to the IRA and therefore the
prosecution could not get a conviction. If the man is guitly then by
all means he should be convicted but, like Caesar's wife, the legal
system should be above suspicion. There should not even be a hint that
the justice department is trying to manipulate the process to assure a
conviction. It makes me wonder about the strength of their evidence.
Steve
|
| 1373.17 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | | Tue May 10 1994 15:01 | 5 |
|
Do you think the Justice dept get to select the jury, or do you think
they have more rights than the Defence when it comes to vetting them?
Apart from the lack of Irish Americans that is.
|
| 1373.18 | | NASZKO::MACDONALD | | Wed May 11 1994 14:52 | 10 |
|
Re: .17
I am simply saying that if the banning of Irish-Americans from serving
on the jury at O'Murchu's trial was at the urging of the justice
department, then there is reasonable doubt about whether O'Murchu
received due process. That's all that I am saying.
Steve
|
| 1373.19 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | | Wed May 11 1994 15:32 | 4 |
|
Ok, but you don't have any evidence that it was at the urging of the
Justice dept, do you?
|
| 1373.20 | | NASZKO::MACDONALD | | Thu May 12 1994 11:07 | 15 |
|
Re: .19
> Ok, but you don't have any evidence that it was at the urging of the
> Justice dept, do you?
No and I am not assuming that it was them. I'm only saying that it
ought to be reviewed to determine who wanted it that way and whether
it had a material affect on the outcome and if it did he should be
retried. I have no personal interest in what happens to O'Murchu,
but I have lots of interest in whether he or anyone was convicted in
a sham trial. If that is the case then you or I could be next.
Steve
|
| 1373.21 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | | Thu May 12 1994 12:37 | 4 |
|
Perhaps they will instigate an inquiry. Have you seen anything on
Soc.culture.celtic about it lately?
|