Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

Larry wrote:

> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ken Smith
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >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;
>
> No you don't, not necessarily.  Learn the rules of evidence.

> >if there was an opportunity for someone to have *tampered* with that
> >evidence, it doesn't come in.
>
> Yes it does.  Problems with the chain of custody go to the weight of the
> evidence, not its admissibility.

  Rule 901(a).  If anyone can come into the evidence locker and
switch DNA sample A with DNA sample B, there is no way that
the prosecution can ever make an adequate showing that the evi-
dence is what they claim it to be.

> >And if there's evidence that someone had
> >tampered with the evidence, we are properly permitted to make a host
> >of negative inferences.
>
> Evidence that someone tampered with something not in evidence?

  If the government destroys evidence that was known to exist, what
can we infer?

> >  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?
>
> In no state that I know of new a new drivers LICENSE give you a new
> driving RECORDS.  You can get a new license for any number of reasons -
> you started wearing glasses, your address changed, you have passed the
> test for a new class of vehicle, whatever.  But it's all tied to your old
> license in the same record about you.

  As I understand it, Shrub's entire record was destroyed -- wiped clean
(see "Fortunate Son" for the details)!