New ways to break the law! (are you a criminal? Probably)

http://www.theadvocates.org ^ | Bill Winter

[null and void]

And the bad law stands...

[elkfersupper]

Ping.

[inneroutlaw]

Living the outlaw life: Freeing your inner outlaw

[supercat]

Cops must love this one. They can hassle pretty much anyone they want, based on their judgment that the traffic was too close to the suspect. Half a block away, a block away, a mile away, etc.

School zones are worse for that. In the "opening door into traffic" case, a prudent motorist should wait until there's no vehicle visibly approaching which would arrive before the motorist was out of the traffic lane. If the motorist opens his door, exits the vehicle, closes the door, and walks out of the traffic lane before the other vehicle arrives, there's no basis for a citation.

[supercat]

And the bad law stands...

As it would if you were sitting in jail for contempt.

[Gordongekko909]

Perhaps some clarification is in order.

If a law is obviously ridiculous, then juries aren't *supposed* to find someone not guilty because they disagree with it, if all the elements have been met beyond a reasonable doubt. But enforcing this is virtually impossible. So if someone would stick me in a time machine and parachute me into a jury box in a fugitive slave trial, I could dig up some reasonable doubt somewhere, keep anyone from going to jail, and no one would be able to do anything about it.

[G Larry]

I just bought 200 sq. ft. of Reynolds Wrap.....I should be safe!

[null and void]

And the precious Law would stand.

[null and void]

Some things are worth going to jail. Standing up for what is right, good, and Constitutional is one of them.

Under those circunstances I could hope that my case would bring enough glare onto the offending law to have it overturned.

[Gordongekko909]

Yes, it would. There is no way a jury could get rid of it. Only a judge or the legislature can do that. A jury is, however, able to keep it from being enforced in that instance.

[null and void]

I take it Louisana doesn't allow jury nulifcation?

[dalereed]

The keys have never left the ignition of my pickup truck in 40 years and i'm sure not going to start now!

[supercat]

Under those circunstances I could hope that my case would bring enough glare onto the offending law to have it overturned.

If what seem to be "slam dunk" cases result in acquittals and mistrials because jurors find things "don't smell right", that will tend to attract more notice than a rejected juror sitting in jail for contempt.

[null and void]

I take it Louisiana doesn't allow jury nullification?

Dagnabit! I did do a spell check...

[Gordongekko909]

What, are you talking about judgment non obstante veredicto? Yeah, we have that. But the standard is pretty high. It's hard to pull off, and likely to be overturned on appeal. Especially if used against a criminal defendant.

[supercat]

I take it Louisana doesn't allow jury nulifcation?

All a jury can do is acquit a particular person accused of breaking a law. Even in places where jury nulification was common and accepted, that was true.

One thing that has changed over time, however, is that the amount of harm an indictment can do. It used to be that an innocent person who was indicted could expect to be acquitted within a month and there'd be little point indicting people if their cases wouldn't hold up. Now, the government can seek to punish people administratively before trial, and just shrug when the people are finally acquitted.

[null and void]

I doubt it. The case is over. It's good for one more news cycle, maybe two if it's the silly season, or the alleged perp is an OJ Simpson.

Having a the Judge shake citizen like a pitbull with a two year old keeps it from simply fading from attention.

YMMV...

[null and void]

This one happened to be a bunch of disabled ex-cops suing the city for ADA violations and wrongful termination.

IIRC they won. Since I wasn't empaneled I don't know the particulars of the case. For all I know it was a fair application of a fair law, with clear evidence.

I'm just annoyed and offended that Hiz Onner saw fit to set the stage by intimidating the entire jury pool.

[null and void]

All a jury can do is acquit a particular person accused of breaking a law. Even in places where jury nulification was common and accepted, that was true.

Not true, see post #71.

One thing that has changed over time, however, is that the amount of harm an indictment can do. It used to be that an innocent person who was indicted could expect to be acquitted within a month and there'd be little point indicting people if their cases wouldn't hold up. Now, the government can seek to punish people administratively before trial, and just shrug when the people are finally acquitted.

Too true!

[null and void]

*sigh* Post #71...