Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:01:49 GMT, "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>
>"Jon Beaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 05:21:12 GMT, "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jon Beaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:58:18 GMT, "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Jon Beaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> It shouldn't.
>> >
>> >Because you don't want it to be?
>> >
>> >> >>  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?????
>> >>
>> >> Incorrect premise.
>> >
>> >What that they should find the defendant not guilty or that such an
>> >exclusionary clause does not exist within the law?
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> You have been misinformed.  An acquittal is not a "nullification"
>> >> merely because nobody agrees with it, or even if we all agree that no
>> >> reasonable person could agree with it. Only the jury can decide what
>> >> has been "firmly established." If the jury is not convinced the
>> >> defendant is guilty, an acquittal is a legal and proper verdict.  That
>> >> is the law.  The law has been followed, not "nullified."
>> >
>> >Ah, now we see the redefinition of terms....it's not nullification, it's
>> >acquittal....I will simply note that no matter what you call it the
>result
>> >is the same. The defendant walks.
>> >
>> >Glad to see you agree that the jury can and does acquit no matter what
>the
>> >law says, or how firmly you feel you have proven their guilty.
>>
>> Why would you think I would disagree with that?
>
>Something to do with "jury nullification" a term you don't like, however if
>we substitute "jury acquittal" even if it is identical in all respects, then
>you seem perfectly happy. Oh, well, if calling a rose a flower makes you
>happy.........
>

Yeah, I suppose you could say that not getting caught is "identical in
all respects" from not doing it. 

- Jon Beaver