Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"Larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> No.  It's clearly established that self defense is a *justification*
>> defense.
>
>Oh, so what you are saying is that because I fired in self defense the jury
>is *justified* in nullifying the charge brought against me because of my
>clear violation of the law?

Yes, exactly.  By law, they are entitled to acquit you if they believe
your self-defense argument.

>Seems you simply can't avoid that issue. The law was broken, you are asking
>the jury to nullify the charge by IGNORING the law.

No, because self-defense is PART of the law.  Why don't you get this?

Just like you have to stop at red lights, but you can make turns on red. 
If you make a right turn on the red, did you illegally go through a red
light? No - because its an exception specifically allowed.  This isn't a
hard concept.

>
>> What that means is that a law was violated, but under the law,
>> the violation is justified in that situation, so that the person is not
>> guilty.  As a matter of law.
>
>Really? Please point me to the statute in law which establishes that I can
>break the law as long as I feel justified in any particular situation.

You don't understand justifican.  It doesn't mena someone can break the
law whenever *they* feel justified.  It says that certain causes -
self-defense, defense of others, etc. are pre-determinded justifications.

>Oh, and to help you out, my state of residence is Virginia. So feel free to
>show me this statute you refer to. Otherwise what you are refering to is the
>simple fact that it is a well established principle that the jury will tend
>to nullify such charges because the charges being brough are not a fair and
>just application of the law. In short NULLIFICATION.

No, because justification defenses are PART of the law.  You're talking
yourself in circles.

>> >Actually, it is. Because if the only question was if the law was violated
>we
>> >would hardly need a jury, would we?
>>
>> We would still need a jury.  Because virtually everyone would agree that
>> under the prosecution's theory of what occurred, the person is guilty, but
>> under the defendant's version, the person is innocent.  So the point of a
>> jury is not so much to decide legal guilt, but to decide which set of
>> facts - which side's story - they believe.
>
>Ah, the judge can do that, and far more competently than a random bunch of
>amateurs. However, seems that the people had problems with judges making
>this judgement based ONLY upon the violation of the law, and it tended to
>get people really upset.

Ummm, last I read, the Constitution establishes a right to a jury.  And
the jury is known as the FACTFINDER.  The jury's JOB is to determine the
facts.  To decide what they believe happened during the time at issue at
the trial.  

>> Marbury v. Madison, for starters.  Only courts can decide what's
>> unconstitutional.
>
>Excuse me, but that is bullshit. Your reference for this power is a court
>case in which the court assumes this power out of thin air. Sorry, but the
>9th and 10th Amendments clearly establish that the federal government (and
>that includes the entire federal court system ) can NOT assume
>powers......or doesn't the Constitution mean anything to lawyers?

If you don't accept Marbury and the power of judicial review as valid,
there's no point in talking criminal justice with you.

>
>So unless you can show me where such a power is granted within the
>Constitution, then I'm going to have to remain of the mind that the Courts
>have no such power no matter what they assert.

Courts don't have the power to declare laws unconstitutional?

>For example, discharging a firearm within city limits during an act of self
>defense. The law says I can't because the law establishes NOT exemption to
>discharging a firearm within city limits. In fact a strict and literal
>reading of the law would establish that you could act in self defense as
>long as you don't fire your weapon. Except that people feel that applying
>that law in such cases is normally not a fair and just application of the
>law, and this despite the fact that most people also are in agreement with
>that law. Seems they rule upon the circumstances of the case, not because of
>any disagreement with the law.


No - because the law SAYS that in these circumstances, its justified and
not criminal.

>>  One of the problems of nullification is
>> that there is no containing it.  If a jury can nullify for your reasons,
>> they can nullify for any reason at all.
>
>BINGO!
>
>You've finally come to understand. However, there is some control on the
>system. They must agree, otherwise it goes back for another pass. So either
>you manage to get 12 people to agree that you were justified, or you rot in
>jail. So if you decide to rape women, or kill people of a certain race, you
>better hope that 12 random people agree with your "justification".

No.  2 could think it's OK to rape women, 3 could not like the defendant's
race, 4 could think the case wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and
5 might not like the defendant's eye color.  The 12 don't need to agree on
their reasons to acquit, you know.

>I'm asking you as a person sitting on a jury with such a case what your
>verdict would be. Don't evade the issue, answer me. It's real simple. Do you
>convict because they broke the law, or do you nullify the law because you
>judge that particular law to be inconsistent with the Constitution?

The law isn't inconsistent with the constitution.  False dichotomy.

>Why is it you can never answer? Is it because it would show the flaw in your
>entire arguement? Seems like it.
>
>
>> >No personal feelings in the matter, but simply the LAW. ALL of the law.
>> >
>> >You seem to feel that my decisions to nullify are based on my personal
>> >feelings, they aren't. They are based upon the law, and if I nullify a
>> >charge it's because I consider it to be supported by the law and the
>basis
>> >for law.
>> >
>> >> Your
>> >> definition of "nullification" seems to be "the jury can disregard the
>law,
>> >> but only if it furthers my objectives, not theirs."
>> >
>> >Wrong, but do keep playing with your straw, it shows how weak your
>position
>> >is.
>>
>> You said it yourself.  As long as "justice" can be a basis for
>> nullification, each person who has their own concept of "justice" can have
>> their own reasons for nullification.  There's no end point.
>
>Yep, but what you seem to overlook is that all 12 have to agree. Seems they
>are going to have to reach an agreement on their concept for "justice" and
>strangely in most cases they are able to do so.

No they don't.  Jurors need to agree to acuit - but they don't need to
agree on their reasons.  And it only takes one to hang the jury.