Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

"Ken Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?
>
Lost it? It was out of date and needed to be reissued? Why don't you jump
right on that, will you?

-*MORT*-