Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
Gulet: I think that the QPs are overall very strong, but they might be a little wordy
Vengerberg: I'm a little confused about where the line is drawn for the jury requirement. Is it 'six months or more' or 'in excess of six months' - both are quoted
Dathomir: My read of 3691 is that it assumes contempt under 402 and requires the contemptuous action to also constitute some other criminal offense (federal or state) in order for the right to trial by jury to kick in. Your argument posits that contempt under 402, standing alone, is sufficient to trigger 3691's right to jury trial. Which is correct?
Io: I liked this outline! I just got a little confused over whether it's problematic to impose a 6 month sentence, or sentence OVER 6 months without jury trial.
Earth: what about confinement for contempt in other contexts, like not testifying before a grand jury? Those people are sent into custody by a judge and their appeals are to that same judge, who rarely approves those appeals. They can be held in confinement for a long time, too. I'll check how long. Wouldn't someone say those people don't get a jury, so this person shouldn't either?
Whirlpool: I don't agree that six months defines the seriousness of a crime. It's the seriousness of a crime that requires a jury, not the length of the sentence that can be imposed.
Pinwheel: I have the same questions ad vengerberg
Pinwheel: as vengerberg*
Celestis: As much as possible, I think it would be effective to use as much active voice as possible so as to put the responsibility on the judge/judiciary for condemning Donziger without a jury.
Whirlpool: @vengerberg: why should the length of possible sentence define the seriousness of a crime?
Earth: I think it's up to 16 months, depending on the federal grand jury. Those people don't get juries.
Langara: @ Umbriel: See Blanton v. City of N. Las Vegas, Nev., 489 U.S. 538 at 543 n.7 (1989) (“We held ‘only that a potential sentence in excess of six months’ imprisonment is sufficiently severe by itself to take the offense out of the category of ‘petty.’”)
Sunflower: Good point @Blackeye, also curious about that
Sun: agree with the active voice comment. also understand umbriel's comment, but unfortunately SCOTUS has clearly defined "serious" crime to be determined by sentence length
Earth: Is anyone a little uncomfortable with this project?Even if you generally love learning from Professor Nesson? Would anyone like some more clarity on how it fits into the course requirements and how this material will be used long-term? I have heard some people saying they're not sure they want to do all of this for someone with so many resources and so much attention when plenty of people never get this kind of support. Just raising this as a pulse check.
Knotweed Meadow: Yeah I kind of feel the same