• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

10th amendment discussion

Robert Prey said:
And you are the equivalent of a ad hominemopath. The history of the rights of juries speak for itself. It is for you and other legal eagles to become head in sand ostriches if you so choose.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense. If the legal system as a whole holds something true and acts consistent with the same, then that something has force of law. End of story.

I've studied the rights of juries, the history and development of the powers of same. It is a complex and interesting story that as of the early 20th century took its current form, that is that a jury has the power to nullify but not the right or the right to be informed of that power.
 
Suddenly said:
No.

Common Law = law created by judges when deciding a case. The Common Law as to jury nullification has been largely settled for decades.
Click to expand...


"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the Principles of its Constitution."-- Thomas Jefferson

"If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust... or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury hs the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.". -- U.S. Appellate Cout in U.S.v Moylan, 1969.
 
Robert Prey said:
"If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust... or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury hs the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.". -- U.S. Appellate Cout in U.S.v Moylan, 1969.
Click to expand...

Correct, but the jury does not have the right to say, well we don't like <racial epitaph deleted> so that <racial epitaph deleted> is guilty even though the evidence clearly shows he was not capable of committing the crime.

Or, as Suddenly has been attempting to drill into your incredibly thick skull, nullification is the one exception, a unique circumstance in which a jury does have a limited right to overrule a law. In every other instance judges have the right to overrule a jury. We generally call this appellate court.
 
Robert Prey said:
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the Principles of its Constitution."-- Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...
What case, statute or part of the Constitution is this quoted from? It is just Jefferson's opinion and at that unclear as to the precise parameters of the power of the jury.
"If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust... or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury hs the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.". -- U.S. Appellate Cout in U.S.v Moylan, 1969.
Click to expand...

That they have the power to acquit isn't in dispute here. It is whether they have the right to ignore the law.

Maybe reading the whole case would be a good idea, as it winds up agreeing with me...

Public and private safety alike would be in peril if the principle be established that juries in criminal cases may, of right, disregard the law as expounded to them by the court, and become a law unto themselves. Under such a system, the principal function of the judge would be to preside and keep order while jurymen, untrained in the law, would determine questions affecting life, liberty, or property according to such legal principles as, in their judgment, were applicable to the particular case being tried. But upon principle, where the matter is not controlled by express constitutional or statutory provisions, it cannot be regarded as the right of counsel to dispute before the jury the law as declared by the court. We must hold firmly to the doctrine that in the courts of the United States it is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court, and apply that law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

A juror that ignores the law violates his legal duty. It is just that there is no practical way to stop it.

Any other citations? I know a lot of nullificationists like to cite Morissette even though it has nothing to do with nullification...
 
Suddenly said:
That they have the power to acquit isn't in dispute here. It is whether they have the right to ignore the law.
.
Click to expand...

Chief Justice John Jay stated the power as a right:

“It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury,
on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable
distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the
fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion
of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of fact; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the
court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision.”
Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794)
 
cwalner said:
Correct, but the jury does not have the right to say, well we don't like <racial epitaph deleted> so that <racial epitaph deleted> is guilty even though the evidence clearly shows he was not capable of committing the crime.

Or, as Suddenly has been attempting to drill into your incredibly thick skull, nullification is the one exception, a unique circumstance in which a jury does have a limited right to overrule a law. In every other instance judges have the right to overrule a jury. We generally call this appellate court.
Click to expand...

No. But you might call it a civil as versus a criminal case where there is no such judicial power.
 
Suddenly said:
What case, statute or part of the Constitution is this quoted from? It is just Jefferson's opinion and at that unclear as to the precise parameters of the power of the jury.

That they have the power to acquit isn't in dispute here. It is whether they have the right to ignore the law.

Maybe reading the whole case would be a good idea, as it winds up agreeing with me...

(emphasis added)

A juror that ignores the law violates his legal duty. It is just that there is no practical way to stop it.

Any other citations? I know a lot of nullificationists like to cite Morissette even though it has nothing to do with nullification...
Click to expand...

"The first thing we do," said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers."

Now then, in the face of such a law, should the jury be informed of their right to nullify?
 
Robert Prey said:
"The first thing we do," said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers."

Now then, in the face of such a law, should the jury be informed of their right to nullify?
Click to expand...

No.

Of course, your incredibly juvenile hypothetical suggests the response "by whom?" seeing now that there can't be any judges or lawyers to stem the rule of the mob. Which is what Dick the Butcher was getting at in that famous line, and what nullificationists seem to want.
 
Suddenly said:
1) That is dicta, and therefore not binding law.

2) Even if it were, it has been overruled by the Sparf case in 1895. That case is quite specific.
Click to expand...

Well then, if a judge's charge to a jury is to be considered by you to be "dicta," then all charges and instructions by judges to juries must be equally considered "dicta" and therefore such instructions may be ignored by the jury. And that is Nullification. Exactly my point, counselor.
 
Suddenly said:
No.

Of course, your incredibly juvenile hypothetical suggests the response "by whom?" seeing now that there can't be any judges or lawyers to stem the rule of the mob. Which is what Dick the Butcher was getting at in that famous line, and what nullificationists seem to want.
Click to expand...

How about an actual case? A man is subject to life imprisonment for swiping a slice of pizza (under CA 3 strikes law). Does the jury then have the right to nullify or to be told they have the right, or must they follow the judge's instructions (dicta) to only judge the facts?
 
Robert Prey said:
How about an actual case? A man is subject to life imprisonment for swiping a slice of pizza (under CA 3 strikes law). Does the jury then have the right to nullify or to be told they have the right, or must they follow the judge's instructions (dicta) to only judge the facts?
Click to expand...

That is not an actual case, because the value of the pizza slice is not enough for the theft to be a felony, so it would not apply under the 3 strikes rule in CA.

And for the fifty gazillionth time (it seems), Jury Nullification != jury supremecy
 
Suddenly said:
1) That is dicta, and therefore not binding law.

2) Even if it were, it has been overruled by the Sparf case in 1895. That case is quite specific.
Click to expand...

NO. The Sparf ruling confirmed the right to jury nullification, while also ruling that the jury need not be told of the right.
 
Robert Prey said:
Sorry to have to correct you. It is a real case.

Swiping pepperoni pizza, gets man 25 years to life

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...DElWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=I-sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5055,699286
Click to expand...

Except for two problems. In the newspaper article that you link to it states that he physically grabbed the pizza from a 12 and 15 year old who also testified that they had been intimidated before he took it. That intimidation is what ratcheted it up to a felony, not the slice.

Also, according to the article, the jury did not nullify, they convicted him of the felony, so this is not an 'actual case' as you presented it.
 
Robert Prey said:
Well then, if a judge's charge to a jury is to be considered by you to be "dicta," then all charges and instructions by judges to juries must be equally considered "dicta" and therefore such instructions may be ignored by the jury. And that is Nullification. Exactly my point, counselor.
Click to expand...

You seem to be playing some sort of game where you toss around terms that you don't understand in ways that are absurd to a degree where correcting this would take more time than I care to take.

If someone else reading this has a specific question about why the above is flatly stupid, I'll be glad to answer.
 
Robert Prey said:
How about an actual case? A man is subject to life imprisonment for swiping a slice of pizza (under CA 3 strikes law). Does the jury then have the right to nullify or to be told they have the right, or must they follow the judge's instructions (dicta) to only judge the facts?
Click to expand...

They should be told to follow the law. Legislators, not random groups of people, determine what the law is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom