From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification (was: Killing in defense of possessions?)
Organization: SPS
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:11:28 GMT

Mainly we have a semantic argument where you (in my opinion) use an overly restrictive
definition.  Not worth pursuing that.  But I'll select the part where you seem to
be relunctant to admit error.  Trust me,  it's not so bad to admit error.

In article <1992Sep12.153952.19740@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep11.180806.2651@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
|> >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. 


But the quote (from your original posting) is facts _AND LAW_.  I put 
quote marks around it and you've refused (twice) to notice what you've written.


|> >Maybe your statement about judging the law was filler ....
|> 
|> Pardon me? Which statement about judging the law? What are you talking
|> about?


I'm talking about whether the jury should rely only on the law as presented at trial.
It's in your original posting.  That's why I asked you last time to re-read it.  Pause to
think before you post please.



|> 
|> >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.

What I was talking about here is the law apparantly instructs the jury to weigh the evidence
using a "rational person" basis.  The jury then determines what is fact.  A juror who
thinks it's his duty to judge the law (my definition of jury nullification) could 
weigh the evidence in a different manner.  Nowhere did I mention the juror using his
own evidence.

And as long as we're into semantic misunderstandings let's clear them up.
Mike: 
  jury nullification: jury acquits even though the law and the evidence should lead to convivtion.
  facts and evidence: synonyms
Eric:
  jury nullification:  the juror judges the law and whether it's proper to apply the law in _EVERY_
      instance he is asked.
  evidence: what is presented to the jury in sworn testimony and physical exhibits.
  facts:  what the jury determines to be the truth.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.jewish,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc