Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ken Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Larry wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.

FRE 901(a) is about authentication.  I can say "that's the DNA bag I put
in the evidence locker."  I don't need to say "... and i watched it every
sincgle second since then."  I don't even need to say "it's impossible
someone could have tampered with it."  You need more than "but it could be
a different DNA sample" to get it excluded.  But you can argue it to the
jury all you like.

>> >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?

That depends on what the evidence is and the circumstances under which it
was destroyed.  But I agree that an adverse inference is, at times,
appropriate.

>
>> >  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)!

Well, I question your understanding of "it" then.