Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: junkmail01@intertainiaREMOVE.com
Newsgroups: alt.gambling
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification now before U.S. Supreme Court
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 02:44:20 -0400
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <hsb4pvofhtr6ciuafenkh1b9g9ofea9a77@4ax.com>
References: <3f91af40$2_6@corp.newsgroups.com> <npc3pv0no61o83pd420n30kevpcla1dft8@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVa6z2wqp60AP2wk0/NPKGgcvfGovs5p05VHMQOpRKwGRWm/wQkw6qKt
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Oct 2003 06:44:58 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.gambling:157
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 21:47:29 GMT, Robert H. Risch
<rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 17:20:22 -0400, "rex" <rexy@ij.net> wrote:
>
>>Most courts hold that jurors do not have the right to acquit in defiance of
>>the law, though courts recognize that jurors have the power to do so, and
>>that nothing can be done about jury nullification when it happens.
>
>So why bother with such an issue? Use your legal skills to get rid of
>stupid rules like not letting jurors ask questions of witnesses
>directly, not letting them question the lawyers during summation,
Because of seperation of powers, and implied checks and balances. It
is the prosecusions job to get a guilty verdict, the defenses to get a
not-guilty verdict, and the jury to listen and evaluate each sides
argument. If the jury becomes involved in the arguments, then it
looses it's supervisory roll.
>not
>letting them discuss the case among themselves as it is progressing.
Because like all arguments, each issue has two sides. If you start
discussing, you start deciding, with the potential of coming to a
decision before both sides have a chance to speek. Quietly listen,
and when the jury has heard everything, then they are fully educated
to make a decision.
>
>You guys are always touting juries as something to oppose government
>power.
Si, letting 12 people who could get past the pretrial interviews shred
laws that effect everyone, is possibly dangerous.
>How about using them to put a cap on shyster power and
>control?
Great start, but we should all be yelling at our elected officials. A
few boobs voted out, would make the rest start listening to us. :)
>
>RHR
later,
tom
*********************************************************************
http://www.CarFleaMarket.com
http://www.VirtualLotteryPool.com
http://www.FreelancingProjects.com
*********************************************************************
|
|