Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

Ken Smith wrote:

<snip>

> > You think judicial orders and declarations only have effect in the court
> > room?  That's an interesting theory that's also... wrong.  See, once
> > again, New York Penal Law 215.50 (3).  And feel free to comment on it
> > whenever you want to conced it ruins your argument.
> 
>   I'll comment on it, even though it doesn't come within sight of the
> harbor of ruining Scout's argument.  All the statute does is make it
> criminal contempt to engage in "intentional disobedience or resis-
> tance to the lawful process of or mandate of a court" (see Findlaw
> for the text).  If the judge doesn't have the authority to tell the jury
> that they can't nullify, they can't have disobeyed the lawful mandate
> of s court. :)  A cursory search of Versuslaw ("215 w/50 jury nulli-
> fication") suggests that the statute has never been enforced against
> an intentionally disobedient jury, and Tucker (55 NYS 1, 6-7) says
> the judge can't even enquire (a *necessary* condition precedent to
> criminal prosecution) as to why they ruled as they did.
> 
>   IOW, yet again, it seems that you've been caught out in your own
> extemporaneous bullshit. :)

The last time I checked, the O.J. jury is still free.   It
appears jury nullification is still legal.

As defendants are presumed to be innocent, as long as no jury
openly argues for jury nullification, it would seem to be beyond
the power of the court to find at a juror's finding of fact
amounted to jury nullification.   As I recall in California v.
Symposia, the jury choose not to believe the limousine driver,
Alan Park.   Personally I found Park very credible, but I was not
on the jury and it was not my call.

David