www.tonguetied.us - 7/8

[othell]

Actual Article (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1499599,00.html)
Great Moments in Jurisprudence

Lawyers for a man convicted of possessing a machine gun claim his trial was unfair because the judge and jurors recited the pledge of allegiance in court, reports the Denver Post.

In an appeal, the public defender for Frank Wonschik said the jurors' recitation of the Pledge only five months after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, constituted a violation of his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.

The lawyer said it said it was wrong for jurors to have pledged themselves to one of the parties in the trial - the U.S. government.

[VeeKaChu]

As ridiculous as that sounds, it's actually very inventive and a somewhat valid point in that it does address the issue of impartiality.

Won't fly worth a spit, but you never know!

[othell]

I don't think that would elicit any sort of bias from the judge or jurors to be honest. The prosecution may be representatives of the US Government, but that does not mean when you say the Pledge of Alliegance that you would all of a sudden become partial to them. I would actually think that would have no affect on the trial itself... :/

Originally posted by othell
I don't think that would elicit any sort of bias from the judge or jurors to be honest. The prosecution may be representatives of the US Government, but that does not mean when you say the Pledge of Alliegance that you would all of a sudden become partial to them. I would actually think that would have no affect on the trial itself... :/ well said

[crz]

perhaps you people forget you live in the US. if you know anything about the US legal system, youd realize that its a waste of time, money, and effort. how many other professions charge 23 cents for copies that cost them less than 3?