Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

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

>Larry wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.

Having had trials myself, I have actually admitted items into evidence,
Ken.  I would explain it to you further, but I don't want you to launch
into any more personal attacks against me simply because you don't
understand the concept of authentication.  So, I'll let you believe what
you want about the topic, and learn for yourself if you ever actually do
become a lawyer.

>>  But you can argue it to the jury all you like.
>
>  Judges in NYC actually *let you* get by with that?!?  Crikey!!!

Defense attorneyes ALWAYS argue things along those lines.  It's called
"trying to raise reasonable doubt."  Maybe you've heard of the concept?