From: mbisted@hera.ssf-sys.DHL.COM (Morris Bisted)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification
Reply-To: mbisted@ssf-sys.DHL.COM (Morris Bisted)
Organization: DHL Systems, Inc., San Mateo, CA  94402
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 22:27:43 GMT

In article <1892@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <21109@hacgate.UUCP>, tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker) writes:
>> If this is strictly true then the verdict is controlled entirely by the
>> judge since he/she/it can pick just the aspect of law that he/she/it chooses.
>> If he/she/it provides ALL the relevant law (The Whole Truth) then he/she/it
>> must provide the Constitution and therefore allow for jury nullification of
>> the snippets of law he/she/it really wanted to provide so he/she/it could
>> have the pleasure of hanging the defendant.
>
>What portion of the constitution provides for jury nullification?  If it's
>there, it's not obvious.
>-- 
>
>cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
>OR cdt@vos.stratus.com  write today for my special Investors' Packet...


Often it is not a constitutional issue, it is just an issue of parts of law
that the constitution does not speak to directly, thus common law will
require elements be met, and if these legal elements are not met then
there can be no judgement.
 
I'm not sure I got all of the postings on this, so if someone has tried to
explain jury nullification then ignore this posting.

#ifndef JURY_NULLIFICATION

CONTRACTS:
One example of the setting aside of a judgement follows, there
are many others.

The setting aside of a CONTRACT verdict in favor of a plaintiff
(the person bringing the legal action) may occur when the plaintiff
has not proven the CERTAINTY of his damages.  The damages must be
certain both in their nature and in respect to the causes from which
they come.

For example, a Baker contracts for the buying of 100 lbs. sugar at $.06/lb from
a Supplier to be delivered on March 1.  On March 2, there is no sugar, so
the Baker brings an action of breach of contract.  Assume also, that the
the price of sugar has risen from $.06 to $.08 from the time the contract
was signed to March 2.  Since the market will be used to show the
amount of actual damage, the Baker could be expected to recover .02/lb
contracted for or a total of $2.00.  They .02/lb loss is certain in its
nature because if Baker were to purchase sugar on the open market he would
have to pay .02/lb more, and this extra cost would be attributable to the
non-performance of the Supplier.

Lets add the fact that "the sugar expected from supplier is 
ONLY used in one type of cake and is not available on the market" 
Baker in his action now wants to recover damages from not being
able to sell the cakes which is a consequence of Supplier's non-performance.
The jury finds for the Plaintiff and awards damages of $100.00 in lost profits.

The judgement may be set aside for lack of certainty if the Plaintiff has
not proven, that THOSE cakes would have made a profit.  It is not enough to
say that the bakery is profitable as a whole and our profit margin would 
yield us $100.  The Plaintiff must prove that he has made this cake
before and made profit on it, or that this cake is not substantially different
from other cakes that he makes.  Failing to meet this burden, the court can
set aside the judgement. 

Lost profits from sporting events that did not occur have often failed
for lack of certainty. 

TORT

Assume that an action is brought against a Railroad for damages from the
collision of a train and a car where there was no warning lights at
the crossing.  The fact of interest here is that the car hit the 
53rd car of the train(real case).  The jury comes down with a judgement
in favor the Plaintiff(car driver).  The judgement could be set aside
because although the railroad had breached its duty to provide warning
lights, the collision was avoidable by the car driver who reasonably
should have stopped for the train that he saw going across the road.

#endif

That is all

Morris

My company and I have an understanding.  I don't speak for them
without permission, and they don't speak for me without permission.
We have not given each other permission. 

This is not legal advice, do not take it as such.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:9356 alt.society.civil-liberty:3495