Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

Yardpilot wrote:

> "Larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ken Smith
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >(Whether
> > >Bush was busted for cocaine possession is debatable, but I tend to
> > >accept the assertion as fact, given that the document which would
> > >have indicated that fact has mysteriously been destroyed.)
> >
> > You accept it as true because the document that would prove it to be true
> > has been destroyed?  What would you think if the document existed?!?!!
>
> The argument that "it must be true because there is no evidence" sounds very
> much like a J. Edgar or J. Reno sort of spin. It is also the argument of a
> great many conspiracy theorists.

  It's a common application of the basic rules of evidence.  If you want
to introduce the murder weapon, you have to show a chain of custody;
if there was an opportunity for someone to have *tampered* with that
evidence, it doesn't come in. And if there's evidence that someone had
tampered with the evidence, we are properly permitted to make a host
of negative inferences.

  In Texas, IIRC, your driving record includes criminal convictions. So
my question is: Why did George W. Bush need to have a new driver's
license issued, if there wasn't evidence of a damning criminal conviction
recorded there?