HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:39:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.180806.2651@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:

>Sure,  but maybe if you just read it again it will be clear.

Tried that. Didn't work. I think you may have simply left unstated your 
connection between what I posted, which had to do with the kind of
evidence a jury is allowed to consider, and the issue of jury
nullification. As I said, the latter is a separate issue. And as the 
passage from LaFave and Israel indicates, jury nullification is not a
function of the evidence presented at trial. So, I still see no
connection.

>You state the jury
>is "to rely only on the facts and law as presented in the trial" but you also
>state that this is a separate issue from jury nullification.

Right. Issues of what evidence the jury must use in reaching its
conclusions are different from the issue of jury nullification. 

>I thought the issue of jury nullification was whether the jury should judge the law,
>whether any oaths about judging the law were proper,  and whether a juror who
>believes in jury nullification should lie in any oath about not judging the law
>(otherwise the right of jury nullification is removed because any jury-nullifier
>is not left on the jury).

Well, these are certainly some issues that a lot of people raise in
discussions of jury nullification, but, technically, nullification simply
denotes an acquittal in a case where literal application of the facts
and law presented to the jury would seem to dictate conviction.
This doesn't have anything to with what I posted, which addressed what
*facts* the jury will consider.

>Maybe your statement about judging the law was filler ....

Pardon me? Which statement about judging the law? What are you talking
about?

>and the separate issue (you
>meant) was the juror following the law about not allowing his experiences to shape
>his verdict.

If I follow your statements here correctly, you're right that I was saying
that this is a separate issue from that of jury nullification.

>  But wouldn't a believer in jury nullification want to judge the
>law about what shapes his verdict?

I don't know what you mean by "a believer in jury nullification." Jury
nullification is a fact, not a belief. If what you're saying is, shouldn't
a juror be able to rely on his own facts rather than, or in addition to,
the evidence presented at trial, to which he is bound by oath to limit his
consideration, the answer is no. This is a separate issue from jury
nullification, which is acquittal *in spite of* of what the facts and the
law are--thus, nullification might occur even when the jurors do *not* choose to
violate their oath and consider facts outside of those presented at trial.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung
From: astallon@us.oracle.com (Anthony Stallone)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Defacing Money
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:34:53 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

Question: What are the laws regarding the alteration of currency?
          For example, I've seen coins turned in to jewlery, dollars
          burned at protests, and bills marked up by various groups.
          Is any of this illegal?

Thanks for your reply!
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17224 alt.politics.correct:5346
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Racism in America
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:40:04 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <GPRIORES.92Sep14234021@fish.oracle.com> gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi) writes:
>In article <BuL6z7.n0H@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>> As I recently remarked in another newsgroup, racists are everywhere.
>
>Do you mean in every state? In every city? On every block? In every
>house? Everyone?
>
>Saying that racists are everywhere is somewhat like my recent
>observation that "those damn Miatas are all over the place". It's
>purely a personal, subjective observation, means nothing to someone
>trying to determine the statistical occurrence of Miatas in the
>general automotive population, and (an important point) is exacerbated
>because I will notice a single Miata in a sea of other cars. You see
>the connection, I trust.

Note the difference in language games.  Miller makes what belongs to the
language game of political talk, an account of racism which attempts to
show that it is pervasive, so pervasive as to be almost unnoticed (John
Edgar Wideman, in the month's esquire, quotes a student as saying
there's no need for the Klan, since the Republican presidents of the
last twelve years are implementing a Klan program.)  Gordon then makes
an airy comparision to talk about "Miatas."

Gordon, we know to the units position how many Miatas are sold since
their manufacturer has an interest in counting sales.  Whereas we don't
know who killed Kennedy, or just how racist our leaders are, because
there's an interest in concealing these facts.  Every engineer who has
bumped his head against the glass ceiling knows, or should know, that
Power trumps Knowledge.

Furthermore, many of us don't know what a Miata is, for those of us who
cannot afford expensive Japanese automobiles have no need for this
information.   Your reply places on display the distressing fact that
you care more about shipping American autoworkers' jobs to Japan by
spending too much money on Japanese cars, than about racism.
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Censorship is never safe
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:46:56 GMT
 <1992Sep13.051759.521@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  <19164@smoke.brl.mil>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <19164@smoke.brl.mil>
matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

> What would any of us -- individual or legislator -- do if he did 
> not have moral authorities to decide what is moral and what is not?  
> Either some of us would decide what is moral and then try to impose
> it either by law (criminal or civil) or social pressure on everyone
> else [...]      [Matthew Rosenblatt]

I'm not sure you are answering the question I'm asking.  I try to
"decide what is moral" and, for a certain subset of what I decide is
moral, I "try to impose it either by law (criminal or civil) or social
pressure on everyone else".  I believe that you do the latter as well,
and I consider it a mark in your favor.

What I'm wondering is not how your morals determine your legislative
agenda, but how you reach them.  Your previous post suggested to me
that homosexuality was immoral, and that to demonstrate this it was
sufficient to quote an authority:

> Why is it bilge tripe?  Because the _Gemara_
> in Yebamoth 76a quotes Rav Huna where it concludes that female
> homosexuality is a form of obscenity.  Also, the Rambam in his
> _Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Issurai Bi'ah_, chapter 21:8, states,
> "Women who practice homosexuality are committing a prohibition [...]

Do you mean to say that you agree with everything these authorities
say, a priori?  If I could find material by these authorities that you
had not previously seen, would convincing you of it's authenticity
suffice to convince you that it's moral guidelines were correct?  

If that's not the case, how can you present these authorities as
sufficient to demonstrate that homosexuality is immoral?

> else
> As for me, I've rented rooms on my third floor to couples both 
> straight and homosexual, male and female.  In no way does the
> occupancy of the third floor affect my estimation of the worth
> of a publication.  The people up there may be fine fellows, they
> may be rogues, but the magazines seized by the Canadian censors
> were nonetheless "bilge tripe."   [Matthew Rosenblatt]

How can they be "fine fellows" if they engage in immoral practices?
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:54:36 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Sep12.153952.19740@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
writes:
> I don't know what you mean by "a believer in jury nullification." Jury
> nullification is a fact, not a belief. 

Well, so is capital punishment, but when people say "I don't believe in 
capital punishment", their statement still conveys a meaning.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17162 alt.politics.correct:5317 alt.censorship:7475
From: gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net (was: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Date: 14 Sep 92 07:09:19 GMT
	<GPRIORES.92Aug28114045@fish.oracle.com>
	<1992Aug28.201606.7476@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Sep12.153748.2618@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Sep12.153748.2618@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> In article <1992Aug28.201606.7476@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
>>In article <GPRIORES.92Aug28114045@fish.oracle.com>, gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi) writes:
>>> we might have found Mr. Ed's female counterpart, the logical Jackee
>>> Joyner-Kersee.
>>My dear mr. gordon, if you read the first page of the Arabian Nights (that is
>>if your ethnophobe self has ever considered reading anything with "Arab"
>>on the cover), you will realize that the name Sheheryar is "male."  
> Sheheryar, the guy was probably thrown off the scent by the first three
>letters of your name.  The acuity of those who flame people based on the
>Arabic or female provenance of their namesm
>[...]
> It's also interesting that Gordon names a black female athlete.  The
>origin of this is rather strange, but here it is
>[...]
>The original poster manifested a subconcious
>racism in his contempt for Carl Lewis' achievements, as well as the (all
>too typical) contempt of those with intellectual pretensions for
>athletes, a contempt which has its origins in Cartesian dualism.
>Gordon here compounds the original racism and dualism with sexism and
>simultaneously renders the analogy even more unhappy, for the athlete he
>names, a black woman who probably threatens Gordon, is not even a hurdler.

Amusing as this obviously was for Ed to write and certainly is for me
to read, there's a much simpler explanation: I thought I recalled
Sheheryar being referred to as a female a few weeks ago. I find your
explanation much more entertaining, though, so I'm willing to let the
record show that, according to Sheheryar Hasnain and Ed Nilges, I am
ethnophobic, stupid, racist, sexist, pretentious, insecure, and an
inept architect of analogy. I can think of no more emphatic a
vindication of my intellectual credentials.

                                   Cordially,

                                        -g


P.S. I do apologize if my error has in any way offended you...
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:42:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.031206.1665@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>
>In fact, the Zenger case (remember where "freedom of the press"
>originated?) was an example of jury nullification.

Quite right. I've point out myself on many occasions in this newsgroup
that the Zenger case is a particularly good example of nullification 
in action.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung
From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Subject: Re: Handling SSN parasite
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:37:51 GMT

In article <18qq0pINN1mf@agate.berkeley.edu>, jaffray@oreo.berkeley.edu (Alan Jaffray) writes:
|> (my apologies if there is a more appropriate place for this, but misc.legal
|> was the only non-privacy group that the SSN FAQ was posted to...)
|> 
|> I'm moving to Chicago, and while establishing phone service with
|> Illinois Bell, they decided to check my credit.  This seems reasonable,
|> to make sure I'm not going to make $3000 of calls then run away, or 
|> something like that.
|> 
|> However, they use my Social Security Number to check my credit with, and
|> apparently someone else is listed with that credit bureau, using my SSN.
|> He's in San Francisco, and quite possibly an immigrant (judging by the
|> sound of his name).  
|> 
|> My question is, how much of a problem can this be for me?  The droid at
|> the SSA told me that it's not a problem until he does something nasty using
|> my number as ID, which seems ridiculous.  (oh, that bomb under your bed
|> isn't a problem, it hasn't exploded, has it?) :-)

So what's your SSN?

Henry
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Followup-To: talk.politics.mideast
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:37:34 GMT

In article <19171@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>
>Literature or not, it is surely impolite to write the Prophet's name 
>without the invocation, "Allah's blessing and peace upon him and his
>companions," as Mr. Anwar has done here.
>
>A little more respect next time, please.
>
>					-- Matt Rosenblatt
>                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

Matt, it is surely imperialistic of you to lecture blacks on Marcus
Garvey and Muslims on the correct way to mention the Prophet.  However,
this rather sophomoric habit is of a piece with postmodern racism and
sexism, which is a form of nihilism.  Concerned as it is with solely
preserving white male privilege, and deprived as it is by widespread
historical and cultural illiteracy, postmodern racism and sexism has
only the (misunderstood) traditions of the Sixties as an intellectual
base.  It therefore interprets tolerance as vacuity and all too readily
assumes that it can cross-dress in the rules and styles of alternative
traditions when in fact such cross-dressing is far more difficult than
the postmodern racist and sexist would assume.

I suggest that we need no lessons from you on how to talk about the
Prophet.  I suggest also that your snide attempt to portray Islam as
identical with Islamic fundamentalism is no better than Serbia's
despicable attempt to justify its war crimes as a war against
fundamentalism merely because certain members of Bosnia-Herzegovina's
multiconfessional society happen to be Muslims (or a peculiarly
broadminded nature.)                             

Follow ups to talk.politics.mideast, since we have strayed far from
misc.legal topics.  And I will follow up.

Regards,


Edward G. Nilges
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Tort Reform (was: Number of Lawyers)
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:12:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: ncratl.9000
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep2.193125.17215@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:

>The pupose behind punative damages would seem to be, from the name alone,
>to be punishment.  A aggrieved party could concievably still justify seeking
>to punish a defendent as a means of dissuading them from repeating the tort.
>Especially, in a class action suit.

IMHO, punishment belongs in the criminal side of the law.

The civil side should be reserved for compensation.

-- 
--Mark
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Posner
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:26:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.161300.5813@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.044712.22743@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep12.021547.1223@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>>[False claim that Posner is racist]
>>[Refutation of claim]
>[95 lines that delete original claim and refutation]

'Nuff said.  Don't suppose we'll ever hear an apology from Ed, either.
-- 
           .........................................................
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
         here i sit looking for a warming smile in a house of cold wit
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Drug dogs used in public schools
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:24:22 GMT

mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:

>In article <XTN2qB1w164w@csiatl.Gwinnett.COM> olga@csiatl.Gwinnett.COM (olga from the volga) writes:
>>I don't get this one.  My landlord is not allowed just to walk in my 
>>apartment and rummage through my personal belongings and search everything 

>Minors have less rights than adults....
>This is just another example of this.

Partly.  The Fourth Amendment protection from warrantless or unreasonable
search is strongest in the home, because one can actually have a
reasonable expectation of privacy there.  The rule allowing locker
searches turns in part on the relatively lower degree of privacy that one
can reasonably expect in a locker.  (Note that the test is in two parts: 
1. It must be objectively reasonable to expect the privacy claimed to
have been violated, 2. The expectation must actually (subjectively)
have existed in the claimant's mind).

Drug sniffing dogs are an even more specialized problem.  The Supreme Court
has allowed warrantless use of dogs by relying on the inability of the
dog to detect anything other than illegal contraband.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.great-lakes,oh.general,cle.misc
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Ownership Eroding Away (What are my rights?)
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:16:19 GMT

As others have mentioned, get an attorney who specializes in this area.
From what I recall, the states and federal government own all the waterways,
e.g., Lake Erie, even if the boundaries change due to erosion.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach, dear friends (was: Re: Ted babbles again
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:05:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.191730.18583@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.132720.26920@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>Mike, Ted is on record (in the "Hate Speech OK, Supreme Court Says"
>thread) as believing in the absolute primacy of free speech.  "Adolf"
>was exercising his "free speech."  Ergo, the Tedster is committed to
>defending Adolf, even as the Supreme Cort told St Paul that Viktora was
>exercising speech when he trashed a black family's lawn.  

No, I believe in free speech.  I'll even defend your right to speak.
I won't, however, defend you when people attack you by calling you an
idiot.

>(1) I have already shown, Mike, that taking positive enjoyment in
>heat-sans-light flamefests (as opposed to real dialog) is terroristic in
>Lyotard's technical sense,

I must have missed that.  Please explain how a lurker who enjoys
alt.flame is a terrorist.

> and that it deconstructs stated committments
>to free speech.

Please translate that into English.

>  Lyotard, in The PostModern Condition, defines terrorism
>as dialog termination.

You mean, if I hang up the phone on some salesslime, I'm a terrorist?
Somebody is crazy here.

> in taking
>further delight in flaming folks like Sheheryar, one conclusively
>establishes a lack of interest in the DIALOG that is a necessary part
>of free speech.

No, flaming clueless folks is part of a DIALOG (at least, flaming
those who can flame back).  BTW Ed, you're flaming Ted; are you a
terrorist?

>  Free speech becomes nothing more than the powerless
>ravings of the homeless man in Grand Central Station.  The suspicion
>grows that this was the desired outcome.

The power of free speech depends on who chooses to listen.

>(2) Usenet was created with taxpayer dollars when it originated in the
>Sixties as Arpanet.

You have your net.history wrong.  The Internet can trace its ancestry
to the Arpanet, in the early 1970's.

>  As such property rights are not absolute within
>Usenet as a whole.  Even within "private" sites, there is no reason why
>First Amendment rights should not trump property rights.

First Amendment rights prevent the government from silencing somebody
due to the content of his speech.  How does that conflict with
property rights?

>  They already
>trump ordinary standards of common decency (as in the case of
>Penthouse's "right" to trash Miss Wyoming.)

Yes, rights override "standards".

>>R.A.V. concerned a different legal issue: whether it is Constitutional
>>to allow state action that punishes someone for expressing hateful
>>ideas.
>
>Bullshit, fella.  The law enhanced the penalties for pre-existing acts
>that were already illegal.

Then how did Viktora get convicted *only* of violating the hate speech
law, before he had been tried on the other charges?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com