Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

Larry wrote:

> 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."

  How do you know this is it?  How can *the jury* know?

  Officer Bob could say upon direct that he picked up the swab (I'm
not too up-to-speed on forensic procedure, so bear with me) at the
scene [doing all the things he has to do to show where he got it], and
had it stored in the evidence locker.  If no one knows what happened
after that, it's not authenticated, and it ain't coming in.

> 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.

  You have to show that it is what you say it is, Counsel.  Otherwise,
it doesn't come in.  Period.  That's what Rule 901 is all about.

>  But you can argue it to the jury all you like.

  Judges in NYC actually *let you* get by with that?!?  Crikey!!!

> >> >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.

  We're talking general rules here.  As the sainted Irving Younger pointed
out, most judges don't really understand the rules of evidence -- especially
the one on hearsay. :)

> >> >  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.

  Read "Fortunate Son."