Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What happens if the judge disagrees with a jury in a trial?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ArchieStone1 Donating Member (137 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:00 PM
Original message
What happens if the judge disagrees with a jury in a trial?
Edited on Sat Mar-28-09 06:00 PM by ArchieStone1
sorry, my girlfriend asked me and I told her I had no idea. How does that work? I told her I would guess the jury has the ultimate word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. Usually the jury rules on the verdict, guilty or innocent.
The judge sets the sentence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. Generally, the jury's verdict is final.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. I don't think that's true. It's possible for a judge to set aside "guilty"
verdict. But if the jury finds the person "not guilty" the judge can not find the person guilty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #17
25. But he/she needs 'cause' to set it aside, I believe.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
29. Absolutely not! The jury's decision can be set aside by the trial judge.
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 11:38 PM by TexasObserver
And that's true of civil and criminal cases. However, it can only set aside a guilty finding in criminal cases. It may not set aside an acquittal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Speck Tater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. The judge is the moderator. Only the jury determines the verdict. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. Not true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Speck Tater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #18
27. True.
However, simply saying "true" or "not true" is utterly meaningless unless that claim is backed up by some kind of justification for making the claim.

My justification is oral instructions given to me by the judge while serving on jury duty. Your justification?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. A judge can set aside a jury verdict in both civil and criminal cases
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 11:17 PM by merh
it is very rare in both, extremely rare in criminal (but not unheard of).

Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) is the term used in my state.

Yes, the judge needs cause (as in the prosecution didn't met it's burden despite what the jury determined.) I remember assisting in one case where the jury was out so long, the judge was so worried they would come back with guilty and was upset with himself for not dismissing the case before he let them deliberate. Our client was charged with murder but the evidence at trial showed it was self-defense and the judge thought that the jury knew that, they just took so long in making a decision it worried him. The jury did acquit our client.

This wiki article simply explains it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict

As this article points out, in a criminal case, the judge can only set aside a guilty verdict. If the jury acquits, the prosecution cannot ask the judge to find the defendant guilty despite the verdict (that would be a violation of the double jeopardy clause).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Speck Tater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #28
38. Thank you for that. I was misinformed. By a judge, no less. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. judges are very hesitant to set aside a verdict
(especially in a criminal case). The judge in the self defense/murder case was besides himself, he was sure our client had killed the man who assaulted him in self defense, he was so sure the jury would take no time at all to come back with a not guilty verdict. When the jury was out for hours he paced his office, called us in to research the subject - he didn't want to see our guy (who was mentally challenged) go to jail for the killing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Speck Tater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. My jury duty case was far less monumental: Alleged theft of a bicycle. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Perhaps he needs to change careers and become a prosecutor??
Not a very impartial judge!

:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LooseWilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. More like a judgemental judge...
Funny that judges are expected not to make any judgements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. He didn't want to invade the province of the jury
and he was certain they would find our client not guilty, that the killing was in self defense. It just took so damn long (several hours versus a few minutes) - he became concerned that they didn't understand his instructions on the law. Had they found the man guilty I feel he would have set aside the verdict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-31-09 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #40
51. JNOVs are basically a safety valve.
Usually, if a judge doesn't think it should go to the jury they're going to toss it out before it ever gets to that point. If the judge changes his mind after the jury is sent back (as you are saying) then they'll set it aside. Partly it's to save judicial resources, partly it's to ensure justice is done, and partly it's because judges don't like getting reversed on appeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. In a civil case he or she can set aside the verdict.
In a criminal case he or she can set aside a conviction, but not an acquittal.

Whether the plaintiff or prosecutor has met its prima facie burden is always a question of law which rests with the judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArchieStone1 Donating Member (137 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
5. ok thanks to both
Although I now saw a Slate article reporting how a judge threw out a jury's verdict that would have sent a guy to jail for murder. The article contends that a judge can only throw out guilty verdicts, not "not guilty" verdicts:

http://www.slate.com/id/2067185/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. it depends
In civil cases judges often overrule juries as to amount of damages. In criminal cases generally the verdict of the jury is the verdict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friedgreentomatoes Donating Member (304 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. Jury is final
The judge does not rule. The judge decides if proper procedure is being followed, that everything is going on as per the constitution, that the defendent is treated as innocent until proven guilty, etc etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
30. The judge can set aside a civil verdict, or a criminal verdict of Guilty.
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 11:40 PM by TexasObserver
The judge is the person who firsts interprets the jury's findings. In civil cases, that means the jury only makes findings of fact. The do not decide the final outcome. They answer fact questions. The judge then looks at their responses and decides what Judgment to enter on the verdict. Or, in a civil case, the judge can simply order a new trial based upon his or her sense that justice requires it. There are also ways in a criminal case the trial judge can set aside the verdict, if the verdict is one of GUILTY.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. The judge can issue a "judgment notwithstanding the verdict"
It's not used very often, but the judge can issue a judgment N.O.V.:

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1354&bold=

adj. shorthand acronym of Latin for non obstante veredicto (nahn ahb-stan-tuh very-dick-toe) meaning "notwithstanding the verdict," referring to a decision of a judge to set aside (reverse) a jury's decision in favor of one party in a lawsuit or a guilty verdict when the judge is convinced the judgment is not reasonably supported by the facts and/or the law. The result is called a "judgment N.O.V." Granting a motion for such a ruling means the court realizes it should have directed the jury to reach an opposite verdict in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArchieStone1 Donating Member (137 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. cool
t.y.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 05:24 AM
Response to Reply #10
33. why? anything specific going on? inquiring minds and all... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friedgreentomatoes Donating Member (304 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
9. aaah!
I assumed we are talking about a criminal case here.
Note to self: stop watching SVU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
11. Varies by case and by jurisdiction.
Edited on Sat Mar-28-09 06:15 PM by Laelth
If it's a civil case, the jury finds facts, and the judge can't usually disturb or change those findings. In the criminal setting, the jury finds guilt or innocence. Judges do not usually disturb that finding, either, but Judges normally set the sentence if the accused is convicted, and a Judge who disagreed with a jury conviction might set a very light penalty for the crime.

Hope that helps.

:dem:

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--clarity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. wrong wrong wrong
juries do NOT find guilt or innocence.

juries find people either

1) guilty

or

2) NOT guilty

(2) does NOT necessarily imply innocence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Absolutely correct.
I stand corrected. I was using lay terminology, but yours is more precise.

Feel better?

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. yes
it's one of my pet peeves.

newspapers do this frequently, saying that a jury found a person "innocent' of all charges bla bla
which says a lot about the quality of newspaper reportage.

everybody has their precisenesspetpeeves(tm)

this is one of mine.

i try not to be small, but sometimes i succumb
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoPasaran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #22
34. The reason a newspaper will report "innocent" when the actual verdict is "not guilty"
If the word "not" managed to get lost somewhere between the reporter's notebook and the printing press, the paper would be looking at a libel case against them if they wrongly reported a defendant "guilty". It's much harder to make that mistake if you use the word "innocent".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasProgresive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. That's correct but if the jury does not find the defendent guilty
then of course the person is innocent because they are innocent until proven guilty. So a "Not Guilty" verdict means innocent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. false
a person is PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty.

that's a presumption, not a conclusion of law.

i repeat anyway... the issue is that juries have no authority/mandate/possibility of determining INNOCENCE.

the presumption of innocence is also somewhat misunderstood. there is a big difference between a legal presumption, and a conclusion.

the latter is something a jury can make.

a not guilty verdict does not mean innocent.

oj, for instance was found not guilty.

but he was found responsible for wrongful death.

those are not inconsistent but they WOULD be if he was INNOCENT.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #24
36. in re oj
You're talking about two different standards of proof. In a criminal case, the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. In a civil case (e.g. a wrongful death action) the standard is that the plaintiff has to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant is more likely liable than not. That standard is much reduced - one good way of thinking about it is 50% and a feather.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-31-09 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #36
49. Criminal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.
NOT beyond ANY reasonable doubt.

"beyond a reasonable doubt" does not have a quantifiable definition.

Basically it incorporates the reasonable man standard.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-31-09 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. What do you take to be the difference between...
any reasonable doubt and a reasonable doubt?

And of course it's not quantifiable - though some have tried. There are different jury instructions for reasonable doubt, though, and exactly what that phrase means depends very much on which instruction the judge employs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #11
35. A judge can set aside a verdict in a civil case, though.
If the judge believes that no reasonable jury could have reached the conclusion that the jury reached, they will enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It doesn't happen often, as usually the judge will grant summary judgment or a directed verdict before they even let the case go to the jury for deliberation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
12. The judge gives the sentence
So the judge can claim time served, or the minimum or the maximum sentencing allowed within the law. The jury decides guilt or innocence and whether to convict for the death penalty
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
13. He can set aside the verdict. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
14. As I understand it, the judge can issue a "directed verdict" -- overturning a jury's verdict
Of course the burden then is on the judge to prove that the jury's verdict was not made in accordance with the facts in the case, or on a particular point of law. It's subject to a hell of a lot of review by higher courts most of the time, but certainly a few slip between the cracks. I think I recall that it's valid only for turning a guilty verdict into not guilty, but not the other way around, but I'm not 100% sure about that. Rules for such a maneuver would vary from state to state, also.

This would be applied in either civil or criminal cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
strategery blunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. No, you're talking about judgement NOV
which was explained by another poster above.

A directed verdict happens when the evidence is so strong for one side that the court does not feel that it needs to bother instructing a reasonable jury (but after pretrial motions for summary judgment and whatnot).

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/0191D483-90FC-4F52-90782F50FD9AE31F/alpha/D/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
32. Typically, defendant moves for a Directed Verdict at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case.
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 11:36 PM by TexasObserver
Or the prosecution's case.

Then upon the conclusion of presenting defendant's evidence, they again move for the Directed Verdict.

Typically, the judge denies such Motions for Directed Verdict, and puts the case to the jury. However, when the jury comes back with their verdict, the judge can and sometimes does enter a JNOV, and when they do so, it is often based upon the very arguments the defendant presented in their Motion for Directed Verdict. As you note, the DV comes before the case goes to the jury, while the JNOV comes after the jury does its thing.

Of course, in a criminal case, the judge may not order a new trial once a jury in a criminal case votes for acquittal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #32
48. A judge can set aside the jury finding in a criminal case if he
has good cause. If he believes the prosecution failed to meet it's burden or that the jury did not follow the law, he can set aside the guilty verdict. It is very rare, but it can be done. If the judge does set aside a criminal jury's finding of guilt, the prosecution can appeal that finding. However, the prosecution cannot appeal a finding of not guilty returned by the jury and/or the judge in the criminal case cannot disturb or set aside the jury's finding of not guilty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
15. Louise Woodward


Woodward's legal team filed post-conviction motions to the trial court, and the hearing opened on 4 November. In the days following the verdict it emerged that the jury had been split about the murder charge, but those who had favoured an acquittal were persuaded to accept a conviction. This fact was of no legal consequence, however. None of the jury "thought she tried to murder him," one member said.

On 10 November, at a post-conviction relief hearing, Judge Hiller B. Zobel reduced the conviction to involuntary manslaughter, stating that "the circumstances in which the defendant acted were characterised by confusion, inexperience, frustration, immaturity and some anger, but not malice in the legal sense supporting a conviction for second-degree murder," adding: "I am morally certain that allowing this defendant on this evidence to remain convicted of second-degree murder would be a miscarriage of justice".<2><3>

Judge Zobel's decision to release his findings simultaneously online and in print was widely misinterpreted as an Internet first. He made history for the wrong reason when a power outage delayed the e-mailing of his judgment to the media.

Woodward's sentence was reduced to time served (279 days) and she was freed. Assistant District Attorney Gerald Leone then appealed the judge's decision to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Woodward's lawyers also asked the court to throw out her manslaughter conviction. The court affirmed the guilty verdict and the reduction in conviction to involuntary manslaughter by a 7-0 vote. In a close, 4-3 split decision the court rejected the prosecution's appeal against the reduction of the conviction to involuntary manslaughter, and the sentence 16 June 1998. Woodward then returned to the United Kingdom.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. I was living near Boston at that time, followed the case, and couldn't believe the judge reduced...

...the conviction and let her go with time served.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boomerang Diddle Donating Member (566 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
26. The judge can overrule the jury.
It's rare, but not unheard of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #26
37. Would that be a mistrial?
resulting in retrial or appeal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
31. The correct answer is: The judge can set aside the verdict & order a new trial, or enter a JNOV.
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 11:42 PM by TexasObserver
Which means "judgment notwithstanding the verdict," as translated from its Latin form to its English usage.

This is well settled law.

Juries answer questions the judge puts to them, in both civil and criminal cases. Once those answers are known, the judge decides what judgment to enter. If they judge disagrees with the jury's responses, he or she can set aside the verdict and order a new trial, or order the JNOV.

In the criminal case, the judge may not set aside a jury verdict of NOT GUILTY, however.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
39. In some states, the judge can override the jury's verdict - I don;t know
where or under what circumstances, but I am sure this varies by location.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
42. A judge can't convict someone over the jury say so but he can
set aside a verdict of guilty if he or she chooses to as I understand it. (I'm not an attorney.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
44. The judge decides the law; the jury decides the facts
The jury decides the facts that are in dispute. The judge applies the law to various question, such as whether evidence is hearsay.

Which is why on appeal there are only judges. On appeal the facts are a given, because the jury decided them (say whether Defendant was the one who committed an assault). But on appeal there may be arguments that the judge erred in admitting or excluding certain evidence. Or there could be a legal question of whether such acts as proven meet the legal definition for "assault" or whatever the charge or tort is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
46. The judge is master on matters of law, and the jury is master on matters of fact.

A judge can set aside a "guilty" verdict if they think that no matter what the facts are they still don't legally constitute a crime, but they can't set aside a "not guilty" verdict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-31-09 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. I'm not sure, but I think that the standard is...
that the judge can set aside a guilty verdict if he believes that no reasonable person could conclude that the state met it's burden beyond any reasonable doubt. In civil cases, I believe that judges can go either way so long as they believe that no reasonable person could have reached the jury's conclusion on a preponderance of the evidence.

We don't see many of those in criminal cases, though - largely because the case is going to get tossed out (if it is even brought to begin with) before it gets that far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC