Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

"Jon Beaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 02:00:31 GMT, "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Merlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >"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, 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....
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> But the LAW itself prioritizes that the justification defense trumps
a
> >> >> violation of the firearms dicharge ordinance.  Are you really this
> >obtuse,
> >> >> scout?
> >> >
> >> >So you assert.....So where exactly is your legal reference. Exactly
what
> >> >statute supports your assertion?
> >>
> >> No statute needs to support it, Scout, it is "written" so integrally
> >> into the English common law that it needs no further "writings"
> >> to be acknowledged.
> >
> >In short, the law does NOT say what you asserted, and for the jury to
acquit
> >it must actively engage in nullification. Something you say they would
have
> >to lie to do. Seems that they do need to judge more than just if the
> >statutory law was violated....now doesn't it?
>
> Merlin didn't say jury nullification involved lying.  I did.

Sorry, I stand corrected.

>  There is
> nothing legally wrong with a jury acquitting a person because they
> believe he's not guilty.

Ah, but that's just it. In this case there is no question that he isn't
guilty. Heck he is on the record with sworn testimony that he fired a gun
within the city limits. Yet, I'm being told the jury should NOT return a
verdict of "guilty".

Sounds like nullification to me.


>  That doesn't "nullify" anything.  If the
> jury says they think he's not guilty because they think he acted in
> self-defense, they are telling the truth, and it's not "nullification"
> just because nobody else in the world would agree with them.
> Nullification occurs only when the jury SAYS they believe he's
> innocent when they actually believe he's guilty -- a lie.

Such as when they say we find the defendant not guilty because he acted in
self defense even though no such exclusion exists for the statute against
firing a gun within the city limits?????

In short, what you would call a lie.

> Of course you could SAY that any acquittal is a "nullification" of the
> prosecutor's case.  In fact, you could SAY your ass is a bass.

To nullify the prosecutor's case where guilt has been firmly established (as
above) the law upon which that case rests must be nullified.