HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arg@huxley.bitstream.com (Adam R. Grossman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: jury nullification
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:09:24 GMT
	<1992Apr7.232540.18978@esd.dl.nec.com>
Reply-To: arg@bitstream.com
Organization: Bitstream, Inc. - Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: mlee@esd.dl.nec.com's message of 7 Apr 92 23:25:40 GMT

mlee@esd.dl.nec.com (Michael Lee) writes:
   Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
   Date: 7 Apr 92 23:25:40 GMT

   deej@gorilla.nbn.com (Donna Corner Holmes):

   > I'm  afraid  I have to agree here   [that  the most fair thing  is for
   > people to be convicted when they have violated  statutes and acquitted
   > when they  have  not.]   Jury   nullification...  result[s]  in  total
   > anarchy and a failed legal system.

   This is an interesting view of "Justice" - that if one person is found
   guilty and punished for breaking a bad statute, everyone else must be also
   convicted and punished for breaking the same bad statute.

There are no such things as "bad" laws--strictly speaking.

You must believe that  either (1)  there   is natural law whereby  laws are
inherently good or bad like the physical laws of nature, or (2) there is no
natural law and whatever rules we choose  to make in  our  society are only
opinions.

For those of us who do not subscribe to the doctrine of natural law, trying
to figure out which laws are bad only depends on whom you  ask.  One person
says it is good, another says it  is bad.  Likewise, one jury  may decide a
law is good, and another may decide it is bad.  How can you prove  a law is
good, or bad, or just, or fair?  You can't.  It's only a matter of opinion.

We cannot  prove correctly  or  absolutely  whether a  law  is  or  is  not
*substantially* fair, but we can prove that it  is  *procedurally* fair, by
requiring   that  it is enactly  properly, applied   properly, and enforced
properly.  This is what we mean by "fair".  Why is this so interesting?

If a law is "bad" because someone says "In  my  opinion, this law  is bad",
and if "bad" laws should not be enforced, we won't  have any laws left!  So
I have to ask, if people should ignore ["bad"] laws, why have laws?
--
Adam R. Grossman
arg@bitstream.com
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:18:53 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <26491@hydra.Helsinki.FI> jokiniem@cs.Helsinki.FI (Jari Jokiniemi) 
writes:

>In article <18455@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>writes:

>>			If Noriega was, as the jury found, engaged in
>>poisoning American kids with drugs, the fact that he was a head of state
>>ought not to have protected him from being brought to Justice.
>>[Matt Rosenblatt]                                     ^^^^^^^

>Then it should be quite OK for any fundamentalist muslim country to
>kidnap any american in the territory of the USA and bring him to that
>muslim state to be convicted by the islamic law.
>[Jari Jokiniemi]                    ^^^^^^^^^^^

I wrote about Justice, and Jari Jokiniemi responds with a statement
about Islamic law.  Are we supposed to believe that the two are
equivalent?

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Saturday, 11 Apr 1992 00:06:04 EDT
From: <LIFGREN@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Liability Questions in Fatal Accident
 <1992Apr6.171615.18787@henson.cc.wwu.edu>

Nancy of JPL posed several questions based upon her brother's ex-wife's

accident with a .09 BAC motorcyclist.  I do not agree that the law

is as clear as the other two postings would suggest; I submit the

diametrically opposing conclusions on liability prove this lack of

clarity.  The first question is how long before she will be

"charged"?  If you mean chargedin the sense of a traffic

violation or criminal charge, it is unlikely she will be

charged.  Her defense will be that she had plenty of time

to turn, but the drunk either accelerated of just didn't see

her.  Even if two children (only one of whom might be a

driver with any experience) testify against her, it is unlikely

a prosecutor could get a conviction.  If you mean charged in

the sense of having a lawsuit brought against her (and

maybe your brother) the suit must come within the applicable

statute of limitations.  That limit is a question of state

law; since I don't know your state, I can't answer that

question here.  The second question is whether your brother

is subject to "retribution" from the victim's family. I

read that to mean liability for monetary damages.  That is

also a question of state law.  Naturally, there is a big

question of whether she could be found at fault.  That

will depend on comparative negligence laws in the state

of the accident.  Some states allow recovery by a party who

is 99% at fault.  Others (Maine, for example) will not allow

recovery where the plaintiff's (in this case the victim's)

fault is greater than or equal to the defendant's fault.

Any defense lawyer worth the name can make a strong

argument that the motorcyclist was substantially at fault.

Assuming there is an award for damages against your brother's

ex-, whether your brother is also liable is again a question

of state law.  Some states impose a financial responsibility

requirement on the car owner, some on some car owners (such

as rental companies) while some only impose liability on the

negligent driver.  So what's my advice?

Spend $100 to get a rough outline of local law on the subject.

Also, your brother should tell his insurance company about

the problem.  They may be on the hook to defend him, and a

delay in  reporting the accident to them could jeopardize

his rights under the insurance contract--that's another

good question for a local attorney.  If he gets sued,

he should definitely try to get his company in on it.

Sorry I ran on here.  It is late and I just finished a very

bad trial.  Good luck.   Wayne--I only practice in Maine.

_____________________________________________________________
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Nullification and state action (was: Confirm this legal rumor)
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:52:29 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Mar29.125207.1925@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>In <u1ZBiB1w164w@n5abi.hou.tx.us>, gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us stated:
>>
>>> >From: speaker@halcyon.com (Speaker)
>>> 
>>> >yes it is very interesting. FIJA is very unpopular with current day DA's 
>>> >and judges as it makes the jurors equal to them. The thing about jury 
>>> >nullifcation is that it can work both ways, thus it is the fairest form 
>>> >of justice I can think of.
>>> 
>>  If that's the "fairest" form of justice you can think of, I'am 
>>glad your not in charge of "justice" for anyone. The Constitution 
>>grants "equal protection under the law", jury "nulification" 
>>violates that equal protection by failing to apply the law equally 
>>in all cases. 

Two different juries will not always reach the same verdict in identical
cases.  This is not a failure of "equal protection under the law," but
merely a statement of fact.  No two sets of twelve people are identical,
and no two criminal cases are identical.  The equal protection is in the
PROCESS, not in the VERDICT.


>>Remember, that "equal protection" applies to the 
>>"victem" as well as the "criminal". 
>

Wrong.  Criminal defendants are accorded special protection by
the Constitution.  Equal protection in this case means that all
defendants have access to the same legal process.

The right to a trial by a jury of one's so-called peers is 
the right which is PROTECTED by the 14th Amendment provision of equal
protection under the law.  The conclusions of that jury--the outcome
of the trial--cannot be predicted in advance, or legislated in any
way, shape or form, except that a "not guilty" verdict stands.  
And the judge can direct a verdict of "not guilty" if the jury convicts
against all sense or reason.  


--Al Date
From: drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G Rears (FSS) <drears>)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Laser Speed Detectors (was Re: On the legality of
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:09:40 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army  Armament Research Development & Engineering Center, Dover NJ

In article <1992Apr8.085331.25527@leland.Stanford.EDU> tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) writes:
>In article <1992Mar27.130902.1161@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil> bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) writes:
>>	Find out what color the locals are using (color of the laser, that is)
>>and then have your car painted that color :).
>
>what if it's an infrared laser?

Paint the car infared:-)

Dennis
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (24411-sohl)
Subject: Photo Radar to be used in New Jersey
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 18:45:02 GMT


The state police have made their big announcement about the beginning
of PhotoRadar being used in NJ.  It is still only issueing warnings,
BUT they say (several newspapers have carried front page stories
yesterday and today) they will start issuing actual tickets in several
weeks.

Photo Radar has many problems associated with it: Due process issues,
discriminatory issues, etc.  I'll post more on this in the near future,
but if you live in  New Jersey, call or write your
legislators today to oppose Senate bill S-532 which
will allow the use of photo-radar.  In fact, tell them you want a bill/law
passed which would make it illegal to use photoradar in NJ at all.

If you live elsewhere, but drive through NJ, let your state legislators
know you are opposed to photo radar.  Think about it: Your son/daughter
(or maybe your spouse or friend)
is driving a car registered in your name and drives through a photoradar
site.  A ticket is issued to YOU, for which YOU must pay and YOU
get points on YOUR license as well as higher insurance costs.
Of course you could always "rat" on the other person.  Boy, doesn't this
sound like the good old USSR and/or Nazi Germany?

Also, if NJ does this, how soon will it be before your state adds
photoradar to its list of anti-motorist techniques?

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: jury nullification
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:03:02 GMT
Organization: The Witherspoon Excludables

In <1992Apr15.010229.23164@clipper.ingr.com>, ald@clipper.ingr.com stated:
>
>That is what common law is all about: a long series of jury decisions.

Says who?  As Justice Holmes noted [cite to The Common Law for me,
Ted? My recollection is around pages 122-128], the common law is a
rule-making tradition whereby certain decisions (like negligence as a
matter of law) need (and should) no longer be made by the jury.

-- 
		  For a Big Lie, call 1-800-424-9090

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: danr@pro-franklin.cts.com (Daniel Roberts)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Do you understand?
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:17:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: crash.1992Apr17.011710.19461
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

Actually pleas are entered almost every day as no contest pleas or guilty
to avoid the consequences of trial under Alford. (ie: I'm not admitting it
but I do not want to risk the possible consequences of trial.) The reason
this does not effect the hypo being discussed is that the defendant there
was determined not competant to enter a plea of any kind (Guilty, Guilty
under Alford, or No Contest.) 

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: eldred@rrunner.jpl.nasa.gov (Dan Eldred)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:15:55 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab

In article <khsjs9g.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>1. The Iraqis can now kidnap President Bush and put him on trial in
>Baghdad  for mass murder.
>
>2. It's OK for IRAN to carry out its death sentence on Rushidie.
>-- 
>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 =

Actually the Bush administration is just preparing the public for
its planned confiscation of Panama under RICO.  Come to think of
it, maybe they're planning to take all of South America as a way
of solving the deficit problem :-)

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|   PRESERVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  STOP CIVIL FORFEITURE UNDER RICO!   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dan Eldred                  | Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 198-326    |
| eldred@rrunner.jpl.nasa.gov | 4800 Oak Grove Dr.,Pasadena, CA 91109 |
| Phone: (818) 354-6519       | Fax: (818) 393-4440                   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Literal Constitutionalism (was: NY State...)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:21:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.032903.5983@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>>Regulate, def.-To make uniform, methodical, orderly
>
>My dictionary gives the number one definition as "to control or direct
>by a rule, principle, method, etc."

But, the term is "well regulated militia".  That "well" isn't in there
because it makes the meter work out right.  A "well regulated militia"
is an armed people NOT under the control of govt; see Fletcher's
Political Works pub'd in 1749.

>But even your definition would permit the states to determine the
>uniform types of guns that were required for common defense, and ban
>the rest of them as unsafe, or bad for militial discipline.

No, the state might be able to control weapons that were inappropriate
for a well regulated militia, but it couldn't twist that into
arbitrary control.  For example, it couldn't ban all but one type of
semi-automatic (and would have serious problems banning them all
because they are quite appropriate for a well regulated militia).  It
would have a great deal of difficulty with military issue small arms
and their equivs.

In other words, if the state is going to argue "unsafe", it has to be
right about that.

BTW - Certain kinds of gun control measures are rejected by the
general public.  In both CA and MA, a handgun freeze was
overwhelmingly rejected.  "The people" support background checks, but
they vehemently oppose arbitrary police discretion.  (When people read
the actual legislation, they reject the brady bill and support the
staggers substitute.)

One has to be careful when interpreting surveys; support for "greater
control" does not imply support for any particular control, and may
even be meaningless if the respondents don't actually know current
law.  For example, most people think that there should be a law
against interstate gun sales, but that's been federal law since
1968....  (Yes, there is an ID check and people are rejected
regardless of whether or not they'd get through a background check.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Another Gun Thread Gets Cross-Posted
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:50:18 GMT
 <10317@optilink.UUCP> <1992Apr6.224331.11723@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <1992Apr8.211253.13680@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Apr8.211253.13680@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

> >Are you claiming that those who prefer an "expansive view" of free
> >speech but prefer a "narrower definition" of our arms rights are
> >hypocritical?  If so, would you please explain how you arrived at this
> >conclusion?  [Joe Francis]

> Because your theory of constitutional interpretation is inconsistent,
> or rather, it is rooted in a distinction that the BoR explicitly
> rejects.   [Andy Freeman]

I've presented a theory of constitutional interpretation?  Imagine my
surprise!  What is this theory I've presented?  And what distinction
have I rooted it in?
From: gerald.mcdougall@yob.sccsi.com (Gerald Mcdougall) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: NEEDED: CONSTITUTIONI
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:10:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: gerald.mcdougall@yob.sccsi.com (Gerald Mcdougall) 

.GM>Not at all.  If the passage read "without  compensation" then the local .
.GM>government could just come to you and say "We are taking your house.  We.
.GM>need it for a park.  Oh, here's your 'compensation' - 2-cents".  They   .
.GM>would in fact be complying with the letter of the law.                  .
.............................................................................

In many forfeiture cases that is EXACTLY what they are doing.
---
 . MegaMail 2.10 #847:Nov schmov Kapop!!?!
From: tt@romulus.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: extradition
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:44:37 GMT
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla
Originator: tt@romulus.jyu.fi


Doesn anybody know under which circumstances, if any, USA might
extradite a US citizen to be tried in another country?
--
Tapani Tarvainen    (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
From: chris.sabine@cccbbs.UUCP (Chris Sabine)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: MISSOURI V WILSON
Date: 5 Apr 92 22:13:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: cccbbs.2217.100.uupcb
Reply-To: chris.sabine@cccbbs.UUCP (Chris Sabine)
Organization: Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS - Cincinnati, OH - 513-752-8248

Would anybody have any info about the case of Missouri v Johnny Lee
Wilson?  The case involves a mentally retarded man who was accused of
arson and murder by a known troublemaker, forced into a confession, and
talked into pleading guilty to the charges against him against his
wishes.  The decision of the trial court has been affirmed by both
the appellate and supreme courts of Missouri and has now rea
a...|
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fully Informed Jury Association (Pamphlet)
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:17:08 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.hac.com (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <18446@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
 
>Where is the computer that can listen to several witnesses, observe
>their demeanor as they testify, and sort out the truth from their
>conflicting testimony about what "the facts" of the case are?  Who
>could write the program?
>					-- Matt Rosenblatt

There you have it.  Courtroom demeanor is the litmus test for guilt.
That is how our marvelous and highly respected (ha ha) judicial system works.

No matter if he was the one who murdered his wife or even
(shudder) duplicated a copyrighted picture of a naked marijuana leaf, if he
is not suitably apologetic and respectful -- or doesn't look and act like
your kind of people -- he should be hanged.   Witnesses who carry
authority (e.g. cops) or act like your friends are always correct.
I see no reason a computer could not handle that. 

Seriously though, you may be right.  The best use of a computer is not
to judge the facts, but to throw out the moronic laws.


	George Tucker        tucker@kali.hac.com
		Just say NO to incumbents.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Justices
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:42:01 GMT

In article <3014@cvbnetPrime.COM> jharring@lulu.UUCP (Joe Harrington) writes:
:
:ted chen wrote:
:>o'connor is a moderate conservative, yes.  my vote for ultra right-wing
:>goes to scalia, though rehnquist is a close second.
:
:Am I remembering correctly that Scalia dissented on Bostic[k] last
:year, the ruling that allows the police to initiate a warrantless
:search on a public trasportation vehicle?  It seems to me that
:Scalia has been unpredictable on a least one occasion in the past
:two terms.


Everyone should go out and read "Myron", which is Gore Vidal's sequel
to "Myra Breckinridge". As a novel it is total trash [IMHO], but what
is funny is that Vidal replaces all the "dirty words" with the names
of Supreme Court members. The effect is hilarious.
--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jkogan@eff.org (Julia Kogan)
Subject: Re: Suggestions on fighting speeding ticket
Originator: jkogan@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 04:46:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.180913.16093@cs.yale.edu> kopso-jennifer@CS.YALE.EDU (Jennifer Kopso) writes:
>
>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.
    [..facts of case omitted..]
>|> Thanks for any advice you can provide.
>
>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.
>
I just had a $130.00 ticket reduced to $70 by making that very argument.
If the cop checked "moderate" or "heavy" traffic on the ticket, then go
in and explain that s/he was not attending to the gun at the time (if
possible -- mine happened to be ticketing someone else; I was lucky)
and so made a mistake re: which car was tracked by the gun.

N.b.:  it helps, of course, to:
	--	dress to appear poor but respectable;
	--	be respectful but not obsequious;
	--	have stellar oral advocacy skills.  :-)


-- 
Julia Kogan                     |  These opinions are not my employer's,
jkogan@eff.org                  |  nor are they legal advice.  Ask me _after_
Boston U., Law '92 -- May 27!   |  I pass the Bar, and I'll tell you the truth.