Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

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

>Larry wrote:
>
>> 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.

This is not the standard, Ken.  Neither under the Federal rules or NY
law.  I don't know Colorado though, so I can't say you're wrong.  But
under any jurisdiction I know, "sufficient to render it improbable that it
has been tampered, with, contaminated, or exchanged with another item" is
not even close to the standard of 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.

Of course oyu need to lay a foundation.  I'm interested to see your
caselaw that refers to the standard you state above.

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

The OJ case is a perfect example of why you're wrong.  All the blood
evidence came in, but both sides were free to argue that either (i) it
clearly proves his guilt, or (ii) it was so poorly kept and contaminated
that it proves nothing.  Ken, "weight" is ALWAYS at issue in any case at
all.  Each side always wants the jurors to give more or less weight to
various aspects of the evidence.

>
>  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.

I thought if the chain of custody was poor it isn't admissible?  You've
talked yourself into a contradiction.

BTW, chain of custody within the NYPD is fairly clear.  There is a very
comprehensive evidence vouchering and storage system in place, especially
for narcotics, marijuana, and contraband.

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