i really don’t like our jury system. you inevitably get twleve of the least competent people who can sit upright sitting in judgement. i’d rather see a three judge panel for these defense lawyers to try and snooker.

shleppy on November 16, 2005 at 5:27 pm

It figures…U.S. District Judge James S. Moody is a Clinton appointee.
This judge replaced a juror who made “pro-government comments” with the alternate who filed the complaint. The new juror (and, yes, I’m jumping to conclusions because I’m not as “open-minded” as the America-hating posters on this blog) most probably is anti-government. What makes even less sense is that the judge didn’t just dismiss the juror completely…he made the juror an alternate juror! If you’re going to remove him from deliberations, then why make him an alternate?! Why not just dismiss him?!
Here are a few excerpts from an article about the judge in relation to this trial…
http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBN5T6P4AE.html
Headline: Al-Arian Judge Balances Folksiness With Respect
“Jim has never been accused of contracting black robe disease,” said Moody’s friend, Hillsborough Circuit Court Judge William P. Levens. “His default way of being is to be reflective and introspective and respectful.”
When he meets with attorneys in court to discuss the status of their cases, Moody will doff his robe, come down from his bench and kick back at the counsel table for a more relaxed conversation.
“That’s very unusual,” said another friend, U.S. Magistrate Mary Scriven. “Most judges insist on that sort of clear demarcation between the judge in the big black robe on the big high bench” and everyone else.”
Moody also is droll; Scriven compared his sense of humor to comedian Bob Newhart.
For example, Al-Arian attorney Linda Moreno objected to the inclusion of a jury candidate who described himself as a “good ol’ boy,” and “Protestant, single, straight.”
Moody granted the motion to exclude the man but added devilishly, “When the trial’s over, you can call me for his phone number.”
When the prosecution presented as its first witness an immigration official whose dry testimony put some in the courtroom to sleep, the judge urged an assistant U.S. attorney to either pick up the pace or bring everyone some NoDoz.
When the same prosecutor signaled the end of long testimony from another witness by beginning a question with, “And finally … ,” the judge interjected, “You’re teasing us, right?”
His first words to jurors the following Monday morning: “Thank you for showing up.”
The article goes on listing a few instances to illustrate (or so it seemed) that he was “balanced” or a “traditionalist” such as upholding the Defense of Marriage Act. But what the article doesn’t mention is that the Defense of Marriage Act was signed by the guy who appointed this judge in the first place – President Clinton.
The outcome of this trial, so far, doesn’t look good for America. It looks as if the terrorists will win another round. Liberals and all of the other America-haters should start chilling their champagne.

Thee_Bruno on November 17, 2005 at 9:40 am