Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

Larry wrote:

> 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.

  I think I understand the concept quite adequately.  A chain of custody
wrt any item sufficient to render it improbable that it has been tampered
with, contaminated, or exchanged with another item must be established
as a precondition to admissibility.  And if you don't meet that threshold,
it doesn't come in. (If you want me to cite case law, I can. :))  You have
to lay a proper foundation for the admission of ANY evidence.

  It has *nothing* to do with "weight"; it's ALL about admissibility.

  However, if the chain of custody is simply poor (as it probably is on a
fairly regular basis in New York City), opposing counsel has the duty to
exploit that deficiency in an attempt to create reasonable doubt.  Seems
fairly obvious to me.

  There, it's ALL about weight.

  Tell me again, Counsel: What part of Rule 901 do I not understand?