HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: INFO: References and Quotes about Jury Nullification
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:21:21 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.hac.com (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Apr15.011739.6214@crash.cts.com> joeh@pro-franklin.cts.com (Joe Hill) writes:
>In <21219@hacgate.UUCP> tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr10.211704.22206@crash.cts.com> danr@pro-franklin.cts.com (Daniel Roberts) writes:
>>>I wonder if some of the support for jury nullification in historic writings
>>>would be tempered by the reality that today's jury often does not reflect a
>>>true cross section of the community nor the peers of the defendant to the
>>>degree that it did when the Bill of Rights was drafted.

>>If you are a stable white male resident of what passes for a "community" 
>>nowadays, a jury is less likely to be composed of what you would regard as
>>"peers".  Otherwise the modern jury is probably closer to the ideal than the
>>late 19th century jury.  In any case, according to my dictionary one 
       ^^^oops, I meant 18th
 
>I must disagree the average juror I've seen (counting the entire pool of
>jurors who appear at the courthouse not just those who actually serve) is
>of a different race from the average defendant. Regardless of race the

Picture yourself as a typical asian or black or hispanic or native-american
woman in the late 18th Century.
How many persons like yourself would be found on the average jury?
Asians were rare, but the other categories would sometimes be a large fraction
of the community.  Of course some were not citizens.

Faced with the present drift toward a police state, it is easy to forget that
civil liberties were not necessarily greater when the fine words and lofty
ideas expressed in the founding documents were fresh.  I don't know whether
that is hopeful or depressing.

	George Tucker        tucker@kali.hac.com
		Just say NO to incumbents.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jkogan@eff.org (Julia Kogan)
Subject: Re: Justices refuse to a (1)
Originator: jkogan@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 11:01:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.151802.28248@zooid.guild.org> Neil Hull <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>CMK>        WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Monday declined to let the
>CMK>government institute a ban on material it considers ``indecent'' from
>CMK>television and radio broadcasts.
>CMK>[...]   Justices Byron White and Sandra Day O'Connor voted to hear the
>CMK>government appeal, but four votes are needed for a case to be accepted.
>CMK>Justice Clarence Thomas considered the issue as an appeals court judge
>CMK>and so took no part in Monday's decision not to grant the case.
>
>I'm absolutely flabbergasted to hear that of all people, Sandra Day
>O'Connor would have wanted to hear an appeal allowing any form of
>censorship.
>
>From what I have heard (as a Canadian), Justice O'Connor is apparently
>the Supreme Court's most passionate "liberal".
>
>Now, wouldn't one imagine "conservatives" supporting censorship, while
>"liberals" oppose it???
>
Justice O'Connor may be more liberal than other members of our current
Supreme Court, but the current Court is more conservative than Mussolini.
I would say that the only Justices who could even remotely be called
"liberal" at the moment are Blackmun and Stevens.
-- 
Julia Kogan                     |  These opinions are not my employer's,
jkogan@eff.org                  |  nor are they legal advice.
Boston University School of Law |   
Xref: sparky misc.legal:9307 alt.society.civil-liberty:3472
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: jury nullification
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:02:29 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <ARG.92Apr1162926@huxley.bitstream.com> arg@bitstream.com writes:

>
>If you think its such  a good thing  for juries to  ignore the law whenever
>they feel like it, I have to wonder: why have laws?
>--

That is what common law is all about: a long series of jury decisions.

Statutory law has certain benefits, such as uniformity in commercial
transactions, but the power of the jury to review law is still intact,
and will be useful as long as bad laws are written (as long as 
legislatures meet).


--Al Date
From: gerald.mcdougall@yob.sccsi.com (Gerald Mcdougall) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: 60 MINUTES PIECE ON O
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:34:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: gerald.mcdougall@yob.sccsi.com (Gerald Mcdougall) 

.CM>  - votes for porn (case 2)                                             .
.............................................................................

B.  S.  Who defines "porn"? You - me - the guy behind the tree.
Never forget - "September Morn" was porn to Anthony Comstock,
"David" by Michaelangelo was porn to a lot of pious priests,
"Catcher in the Rye" is porn to a lot of fundamentalists.
And Thomas's vote was in reference to entrapment by the USPS, in a
case that stank to high heaven.  The 4 who voted to affirm should
hide their heads.
---
 . MegaMail 2.10 #847:Notary Sojack is NOT a game show host.
                      
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kckbxr@next01wor.wam.umd.edu (Robin Hood)
Subject: info. requested
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:48:49 GMT

I would like to request some information on a doctrine/ruling/document  
entitled Posse Comitatus (sp?).  I believe that this restricts the  
military from getting involved in civil activites (i.e. drug enforcement).   
I am interested in researching this information if anybody has any idea of  
somewhere to start looking.
Thanks
Bill S.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Legal Cocaine? (WAS Re: Drug legalization)
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  Marin County, Ca.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:21:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.172541.5940@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> mgo5s@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Mark Griffith Ocker) writes:

>i find this incredulous.  from my experience i would estimate 
>that you haven't know much of a cross section of pot smokers.  
>MOST of the pot smokers i know (BY FAR) are daily users.  
>anyone else have any similar/differing estimations?

I suspect that your observations are probably affected by the age group
of the users you are familiar with.  When I was in college, most of the
people I knew who smoked pot did so daily.  We also went out dancing on
thursday night, and frequently stayed at bars till closing.  Now, most 
of the people I know who smoke pot are weekend tokers (btw, I am 32).  
The responsibilities of jobs and families tend to modify your lifestyle.
(As well as the "infirmities" of old age)

Guido


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mprisco@lynx.cat.syr.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: All Drugs WILL Be Legalized!!!
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:12:43 GMT

In article <=kwjw1r.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>Currently illegal Drugs *will* be legalized. It will happen when the
>government, having buried itself in deficits, realizes that its cash
>flow position will improve if they start taxing drug sales and stop
>pouring money down a rathole prosecuting and imprisoning people who
>engage in drug use.
>
>This phenomenon has already occurred wrt gambling. 20 years ago the
>government busted everyone caught gambling; now the government is the
>biggest provider of gambling sports. Unfortunately it is killing the
>golden goose by taking too much off the top.
>-- 
I think you're gonna have a hard time convincing all of those politicans,
judges, cops et al, who are getting rich off of the illegal drug trade
that it would be prudent to legalize drugs to save the government.
Also, who would pay the Drug Czar 'n' pals all of that money??
--
=====================================================================
=          H A V E   A   D A Y             :|                       =
=====================================================================
Xref: sparky misc.legal:9041 alt.society.civil-liberty:3312
From: simona@panix.com (Simona Nass)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:19:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <21109@hacgate.UUCP> tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker) writes:

>In article <1992Apr2.023431.13453@panix.com> simona@panix.com (Simona Nass) writes:
>>if the judge asked jurors to swear that they
>>will take the law as the judge charges it and will judge only the facts.
>>That's what I had to swear in order to be permitted to sit on a jury in
>>New York. -S.

>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.

Error in the judge's charge of the law to the jury constitutes a basis for
reversal, as I understand it. Therefore, there is some built-in check on how
far the judge really controls the law. -S.
-- 
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, though I do have an opinion on everything.
     (     simona@panix.com    or    {apple,cmcl2}!panix!simona     )
From: dsouza@hplred.HP.COM (Roy D'Souza)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:20:12 GMT
Subject: Consumer protection against home loan brokers?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Newsgroups: misc.legal

Hi,

Is there a state/federal agency that monitors mortgage loan brokers?

Are there any simple guidelines for homebuyer to guard against
a home loan broker ?

Any help would be appreciated,

Thanks,

Roy D'Souza
HP Labs
(415) 857-5397

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kopso-jennifer@CS.YALE.EDU (Jennifer Kopso)
Subject: Re: Suggestions needed on fighting a speeding ticket
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:09:13 GMT


In article <1992Apr9.045436.11254@polari.com>, 6sigma2@polari.com writes:
|> A friend of mine just got a speeding ticket and is looking for some
|> ways to fight it.  I suggested she either pay the whole thing or
|> admit she's guilty but try to get it reduced, but she insists on
|> trying to fight it.
|> 
|> Some possibly salient points:
|> 
|>   - It's in Washington state, King county.
|>   - It was for 40 in a 25 zone.  Although there doesn't seem to be
|>     any particular reason for the area to be 25, there are a couple
|>     of clearly visible signs.
|>   - The officer copied her name incorrectly onto the ticket (leaving
|>     out a letter in her last name).
|>   - The officer wrote the location on the date line, then crossed it out
|>     and wrote in the date.
|>   - The officer's name and number are so poorly written that it will
|>     probably be impossible to determine who wrote it from just the
|>     ticket.  Presumably they're logged somehow, so it will be possible
|>     to find the officer that way.
|>   - The speed was determined by radar.
|> 
|> Thanks for any advice you can provide.
|> -- 
|> Brian L. Matthews	blm@6sceng.UUCP


Both my sister and a friend of mine got speeding tickets, on two seperate
occasion, with the officers using radar.  Both fought their tickets and
ended up paying $100.00 instead of approx. $200.00.  Both were doing over
80mph in a 55mph zone.  BUT, when I got a speeding ticket, doing 45mph in
a 30mph zone I had to pay around $120.00.  I just don't get it.(I was the
first to get a ticket between the three of us.  If I only knew that my
ticket price would go down, I may have fought it too.) 
 
My advice is to fight it since people usually get the better end of the
deal if they do so.  If your friend is going to fight the ticket and she
truly believes that she is innocent, then she should plead not guilty and
say that another car was close to her's and maybe the radar caught the
other car instead of hers.  You never know.

-Jennifer
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Government Chief Instigator of Gun Violence
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 01:37:02 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

The government's WoD and its economic violence against the American
poor is the major cause of crime and violence in this country.
Legalizing drugs and free national health care will do more to
eliminate criminal violence than anything else short of summary
execution of first-time criminal offenders.
-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
= Candidate Bush wouldn't recognize principle if he were standing upon it =
Xref: sparky misc.legal:9065 alt.society.civil-liberty:3326 misc.headlines:3250
From: davidson@monet.cs.unc.edu (Drew Davidson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.headlines
Subject: Noriega Trial -- Jury Nullification in Action?
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:34:36 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Distribution: na
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The latest news reports of the Noriega trial strongly imply that the
jury is deadlocked because a juror had made up his or her mind before
deliberations started.  This sounds suspiciously like a case of jury
nullification.  The judge has ordered the jury to try harder, and has
said that it is too early to declare a mistrial.  If anyone has more
information about why the lone juror is holding out, please email me
immediately.

Thanks,
Drew
-- 
Drew Davidson        \\     HELP FULLY INFORM JURORS!  TELL YOUR FRIENDS:
davidson@cs.unc.edu   \\    As a juror, you have the right to vote NOT GUILTY
 ** LEGALIZE TRUTH **  \\   if you believe the law broken is unjust or wrongly
* FULLY INFORM JURORS * \\  applied, regardless of the facts of the case.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Jury Pools
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:52:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Witherspoon Excludables

In <1992Apr14.212429.5727@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu stated:
>Has it been from the inception of this country that juries were selected from
>registered voters?  Or, did this criterion slowly creep into law because it
>presented to the judicial system a more manageable group to select from and a
>higher probability of finding "good" jury members.
>
>You may well guess that I have just filled out a questionnaire required of
>prospective jury members.  Constitutionally, isn't the defendant entitled to a
>jury of his peers?  Since when, historically speaking, was the definition of
>peers narrowed to mean registered voters?

Different jurisdictions do it different ways. A common practice is to
use driver's license lists, auto registration, etc., sometimes in
conjunction with voter rolls, ships manifests :-), etc.

As for a jury of one's peers: there's clearly a constitutional
entitlement, but you still have to decide what's meant by peers.  
Unless voter rolls (or other sources for the pool) show a
race/sex/religion skew resulting from improper government practices
(e.g., erecting informal barriers to voter reg by some minority
group), there's not much legal basis for arguing that your sixth
amendment rights have been violated.

Moreover, you are definitely NOT entitled to a jury of "people like
you."  If you're a non-voter, too bad; you'll have to live with the
prospect of being judged by one or more voters.  If you're white, you
may have a jury of only blacks and Asian Americans, and _mutatis
mutandis_.  The requirement is simply that the *pool* be a fair
cross-section of the community.

(And yes, there are issues about peremptories, but that's another
matter we can talk about when the Supremes decide the current Term's
case on reverse [defense] criminal Batson.)
-- 
		  For a Big Lie, call 1-800-424-9090

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: olson@acf9.nyu.edu (David Olson)
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Organization: New York University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:07:36 GMT

matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

>We can't have nicotine and alcohol poisoning our babies any more 
>than we can have crack cocaine doing so.

But why aren't you demanding punishment for the multitude who push  
alcohol and nicotine on our kids?  Obviously, _Justice_ demands that 
those who sell these dangerous substances be punished.  No doubt they 
will hide behind the technical cover of the law: "well, it was *legal* 
to sell those drugs."  Or that the law we just passed is some sort of
ex post facto matter.  But such technical matters are the sophistry of
legal positivists  that we can safely ignore.

I don't need to remind you that Kristillnacht was the last time the
German Jews faced open violence in the street, and that Holocaust
proceeded by machine bureaucratic due process of law.  Law is not Justice.
Hence my utter contempt for Bork's approving retelling of the Justice
Learned Hand, "Do Justice, sir!," to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s
reply that he was just implementing positive law.

Do you have any evidence that crack babies exist?  Or do you like to
use phantoms and ghosts and witches and other creatures of the night 
as excuses for your draconian restraints on other people?  You have 
made much hay claiming that Noriega deserves punishment for all
those crack babies.  Surely you have some objective, scientifically 
valid evidence that these babies exist, yes?  Or are you just discussing
the abstract possibility that if the babies existed, and Noriega helped 
create them, then we should lay waste to the laws to catch the devil?



I'm still amused by Mr. Rosenblatt's defense of Rushdie and contempt 
for positivists, considering that our current concept of the first 
amendment resulted from the positivist reading of Oliver Wendell 
Holmes, Jr.  I suppose that even positivists can be right by accident.  
And no doubt Mr. Rosenblatt was utterly horrified when Souter claimed 
as his two Judicial Heros, the two most radical positivists to sit on 
the Supreme Court, Holmes and Harlan.

But did he call his Senator to complain?


david
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kckbxr@next09csc.wam.umd.edu (Robin Hood)
Subject: legal question
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:42:24 GMT

A short while back I posted a request of information about "posse  
comitatus".  I heard somewhere that the historical document of posse  
comitatus restricts the use of the U.S. military to enforce criminal laws.   
Does anybody out there know anything about this document?  I heard  
somewhere that the Noriega trial was in direct violation of such a  
treaty/document.  Does anyone out there know anything about this?

Bill
From: danr@pro-franklin.cts.com (Daniel Roberts)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: plea bargaining info sought
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:17:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: crash.1992Apr16.151739.28093
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

I can only comment from experience not statistics but every case I handle
involves some discussion of plea bargianing. This may range from a dramatic
reduction of the offense charged to a plea to the indictment with
a particular penalty being recommended. There are a wide variety of options
in this arena. In many cases that are tried to a jury a plea bargain has
been offered by the state or the defense and refused by the other party.

Things to consider in plea negotiation include:

Possibility of proving the case BRD.
Possible outcomes if proven vs. possible outcomes if plead.
Enthusiasim of victims/witnesses for prosecution.
Equity
Prior record of defendant

Mitigating factors
Aggravating factors


I've just thrown a very few considerations out in no particular order. The
wishes of the victim must be considered but must not control the final
decision of the public prosecutor as to what is in the best interests of
the State. I was flamed here for saying this earlier and I know some of you
will not believe me but my job is correctly done when the interests of
Justice are served regardless of the box score outcome of a given case. I


Dan

---------
danr@pro-franklin.cts.com
Sysop of pro-franklin 614-462-7458 at up to 2400 BPS.
Home of pro.apo pro.scout and 2nd home of pro.law and pro.security.
From: gerald.mcdougall@yob.sccsi.com (Gerald Mcdougall) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: JUSTICES
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: gerald.mcdougall@yob.sccsi.com (Gerald Mcdougall) 

.TC>had a sh*t fit when blackmun wrote roe v. wade.  i think nixon once     .
.TC>said that putting blackmun on the Court was the worst mistake of his    .
.TC>entire career.                                                          .
.............................................................................

Nope, that was Eisenhower speaking about Earle (any other tradition
I can destroy) Warren.
---
 . MegaMail 2.10 #847:Is politics a legitimate form of entertainment?
From: colliste@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Craig Collister)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: copyrights?
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:05:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University

I have a question. Who do I write to to get copyright forms? I would especially
need those for text and computer software. Does anyone know what those are
named? (Cryptic two letter names, I think.)

I did have, years ago, a few samples of each. However, I no longer have them,
or remember how to get them. All I remember is that it took over 6 months
before they were mailed to me. Is this normal? How does anything ever get done?

I will need some papers... Maybe not right away, but if it always takes that
long, by the time I get them... How long does it take to process once you
send it in? If it takes a year to get a book copyrighted, there MUST be
something wrong. (Well, unless they REALLY like the "cool-down" period idea.)

Just some information... if anyone has it, please respond.

Craig
colliste@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Censoship of nudity (was Re: Photo of minor: is it illegal to possess?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:55:15 GMT

I was visited the Art Institute of Chicago last weekend. Not only were
the images of naughty bits everywhere; they even let children in.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky misc.legal:9031 alt.bbs:3380
From: monson@caviar.ECE.ORST.EDU (Tyrus Monson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Ways of chilling or banning Usenet
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:51:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: talon.1992Apr8.185143.13190
Organization: Oregon State University, Corvallis

In article <1992Apr7.210057.745@news.rn.com> larry@news.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn) writes:
>
>>	This is interesting.  How do you explain the repeated arrests
>>for movie/recording pirating?  Living in Los Angeles I often hear
>>reported FBI and local arrests for this, often accompanied by film of
>>thousands of cassettes or VHS tapes being confiscated.  Pretty wierd
>
>having been to the bahamas on regular basis it is interesting to
>go into video stores where all of the movies on the shelves are 
>bootleg copies recorded from american cable channels --  
>
>-- 
This was cross-posted to rec.photo. The discussion is completely inappropriate
to the rec.photo discussion group. Please delete rec.photo from the 
distribution list of any follow up discussions.
   Please!
   We have been getting a LOT of noise from careless cross-posters.