I don't know what the extent of news coverage is for everyone in here but I am watching a case out of New Jersey where a man is being criminally tried because his friend drove DUI and killed two persons. Basically the trial is over the fact the man being tried knew his buddy was drunk when he let him go his way and didn't do anything about it. Sorta like suing a bar owner because they served a patron to the point of intoxication and that patron does something under the influence. Anyway, not only is the case perplexing and may have nationwide influence on other states' judicial system but it also sets the stage so that your civil liberties and rights might begin to erode. That's one point of interest but the other point that has me pizzed off is the jury, who reached a deadlock, was ordered by the Judge back into deliberation and to come up with a verdict. It seems to me that when a Judge does that he/she is undermining the principles of the contitution and idea of a fair and IMPARTIAL trial by a jury of your peers. If the Judge is able to order a verdict then the Judge is essentially directing the outcome of the trial and, in essence, is finding the guy guilty if the jury is coerced and they vote guilty to get it over. Or, if the jury votes not guilty when the person being tried deserves punishment. I hope the jury members have enough sense and havos to deliberate according to the facts and what their hearts tell them and not what the Judge tells them to do. With the onset of mandatory sentencing in a lot of felony cases the Judges lost a lot of leaway in how their courtrooms were to be handled and to what extent their powers were. Because of that, I think, soem Judges strike out by establishing power in other ways.....such as in this case.