Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

"Larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

Odd, I can't seem to find such a statute in Virginia State law. Care to show
me were the law declares that I do not have to obey the prohibition against
discharging a firearm within city limits in cases of self defense. I ask,
because look as I might, I don't seem to be able to find the exclusion you
refer to.

> >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?

So is a prohibition against discharging a firearm in city limits.....but you
seem to feel the jury to nullify that law in certain cases....

> Just like you have to stop at red lights, but you can make turns on red.

Yep, because the law SPECIFICALLY says that I can. I'm still waiting for
your presentation of the law that says the discharge of firearms violation
doesn't apply in cases of self defense.

> 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.

Yep, and now all you have to do is show me a similar exception which
specifically allows you to ignore the charge referenced.

So where is it?

Oh, and I'll note that before such an exclusion was enacted into the
law....making a right turn on red could result in a traffic citation.......

> >> 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.

Ok....show me in the law then. You claim these justifications exist, so
taking the Virginia Code of Law show me where exactly it sets forth these
"pre-determined justifications". Where is it?


> >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.

So where is the statute?

> >> >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.

Yep, and WHY did the Constitution protect a right to a jury (free hint, the
Constitution did not establish this right)?

Something to do with the arbitrary, unfair, and unjust enforcement of the
law by certain judges for the Crown?

Declaration of Indepence - I think so.

>  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.

Yep, as well as the validity of the law, and the justice of applying that
law in those particular circumstances.


> >> 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.

Ok, then let's try this from another approach. If the federal government
were to one day declare that "We have the right to DNA test everyone". Would
you consider this self assumed power to be allowed under the Constitution?

The Court had NO Constitutional authority to assume such a power, and thus
you're quite right that I do not accept that assertion as valid.

Why is it that you seem just skip over the 9th and 10th Amendments to the
Constitution?

> >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?

Yep, as do the jury, the officer, and the people. No one needs obey an
Unconstitutional directive, nor enforce it, even if it has the form and
shape of law.

This coming directly from the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

I don't have to convict under a statute I feel is Unconstitutuional. Doing
so would be wrong, and a violation of my oath.

Oh, but I forget you don't want me to consider the law.......just one tiny
part taking in isolation from everything else that is the law.


> >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.

Ok.....so here's your chance.

Reference the Statute in Virginia law that SAYS what you assert.

After all, you claim to be a lawyer and as such an expert on the law.
Perhaps, not on my state's law, but heck given your experience you shouldn't
have any problems documenting the statute that supports your assertion.

Heck, I may even be willing to consider the laws of the State in which you
practice.

So go for it. Show me the statute. Show me where the law says what you
assert.


> >>  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.

Yep, but they do have to agree to acquit, their individual reasons are
irrelevant, consensus is necessary however.

> >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.

Oh? Really?

The law isn't inconsistent with the Constitution?

So the Supreme Court, indeed any Court, has NEVER, EVER, in the entire
history of our republic declared some statute to be
UNCONSTITUTIONAL????????????

I think that if I ever needed a lawyer....I sure as hell wouldn't pick you
because you seem to be badly ignorant of hallmark decisions by our Courts.

Sorry, but the law can be, and sometimes is, anything but in compliance with
mandates of the Costitution.

Where exactly did you say you "practice" law?

> >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.

Bingo.

And the case keeps going to court until and unless they jury reaches a
consensus, or the prosecution decides to drop the case.