Skip to comments.Judge Dismisses Denver D.A.'s Unconstitutional Jury Tampering Charges ( jury nullification )
Posted on 12/17/2015 9:06:06 AM PST by george76
click here to read article
The judges in the (California) cases I've witnessed never allow an opening for potential jurors to insert any opinions, as they are considered to be wrong by definition.
Laws are the product of legislators not some nut's private belief of what is just or unjust.Dude (or dudess as the case may be). Really. I know a libtard who works for an NPR radio station on a college campus (we don't get to choose family or I wouldn't know it) and you sound...
rendering himself a liar.
a bunch of nut jobs
agents of chaos and if their ideas spread we will be irreparably harmed
they should be punished.
May each nullifier be tried for their life, liberty and property
Have a nice day.
Jury nullification has been an acknowledged fact of American jurisprudence since at least 1735 with the trial of Peter Wenger. In fact, early in our history judges often informed jurors of their nullification right. You’re just flat-out wrong.
Of course, WE do not have autocrats presuming to tell the jury they MUST convict.
If the jury does not say that it is nullifying the law, but finds the defendant not guilty, there is no recourse. If the jury can be punished, it is no longer a jury.
There is also the consideration of selective prosecution. If everyone knows something is technically against the law, but everyone does it and no one is prosecuted until the prosecutor decides to go after you, you might think differently about jury nullification.
“even though jury nullification is a spreading loony idea typical of our times.”
You need education. Seriously.
Only if you consider 1794 recent and John Jay a loon:
“John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, wrote in Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1 (1794): “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
A judge will wind up granting a "12(b)(6) Motion," which is Failure to State a Claim for which Relief can be Granted.
All prosecutors have what is called "prosecutorial discretion" refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute and unreviewable power to choose whether or not to bring criminal charges, and what charges to bring, in cases where the evidence would justify charges.
Read more: Prosecution: Prosecutorial Discretion - Varieties Of Discretion, Subjects Of Prosecutorial Discretion, Standards Of Prosecutorial Judgment, Controlling Prosecutorial Discretion - JRank Articles http://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-Discretion.html#ixzz3ueg4plE8
Jury nullification was something we learned about in law school and it was a given that it was constitutional but that judges were not required to inform you about it. And I believe a Section 1983 law suit against an agent of the state depriving an individual of constitutional rights under color of law would survive a 12(b)(6) motion.
The Ninth circus (circuit) finally got one right.
Theirs probably more cases, I'm just don't have access to do the research. And I'm not going to my local county court house Law Library.
Not as loony as you though.
Spoken like a graduate of some B$ law school. Your attitude is the mother's milk of revolution.
Living proof of my thesis. I note there is no argument justifying nullification as there is none.
Ok genius how would you vote in a Case of Pure Comparative Fault-a real legal doctrine. I’ll be surprised if you even know what the doctrine states. You are absolutely ignorant of basic legal principles and yet declare yourselves competent to declare a law unconstitutional. The way you should be handled if asked if you believe the doctrine of nullification and answer no then nullify I would move heaven and earth to have you prosecuted for perjury.
You have no thesis you have some dumb @ssed opinions.
You put forth no rational arguments justifying nullification, simply ad hominem arguments against me. Do you believe that by requiring jurors before seating it is constitutional to require them to take an oath that they will follow the judges instructions as to the law? Can you violate such an oath if you feel it is unconstitutional?
That is an ad homimim fallacy. YOU are the one who cannot be reasoned with.
I believe it is unconstitutional for a judge to declare he is superior in every respect to the poor morons that are forced into involuntary servitude.
Can you violate such an oath if you feel it is unconstitutional?Can you violate such an oath if you feel it is unconstitutional?
Every politician, military person takes a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution, do you think they should deny that oath?
Have you noticed that I detest lawyers, you make it easy.
I would move heaven and earth to have you prosecuted for perjury.
No doubt. When are you going to start bragging about your school and your class rating? I can read simple English, which the Constitution is, it takes people like you to really get confused.
Ad hominem arguments are a confession that one no longer is able to argue the merits of a position. You do not know what you are talking about and yet profess to be able to determine when a law is or is not constitutional. Even the Supreme Court often splits on such an issue. Ignorant people who believe they possess knowledge are dangerous.
Even the Supreme Court often splits on such an issue.
The Supreme Court only rarely issues a decision that considers the law, they are too busy creating law to interpret it.
Ignorant people who believe they possess knowledge are dangerous.
Here I was expecting you to brag about your alma mater and instead you give us a self description.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.