Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

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

Since the jury doesn't have to discuss their deliberations, nor does any
particular member have to announce why they are voting a particular manner,
I don't see how they can be "caught", and if "caught" doing anything less
than what they are suppose to. Call it what you will, the jury determines
the man shouldn't be prosecuted, he walks.....no matter HOW guilty of the
crime he may be. You call it acquittal, I call it nullification. They are
the different labels for the same thing.
In short a matter of semantics....not fact.