Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: dangerdoc
You were saying ...

No, not jury nullification. Our legal system is built on proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The facts that are relevant in the California law are not in dispute by anyone. In fact, the writer puts it all down. It was lost, he buys lost property and pays $5,000 for it.

That meets what the law says about the crime. So, the prosecutor isn't going to have too much problem with that one.

What I'm saying is that if the jury thinks that even though the guy commits a crime according to what the law has specified and they do not convict -- then you've got jury nullification as the jury is not convicting on the basis of the law and the facts which shows the law has been broken.

And that's fine if the jury decides to invoke jury nullification because juries do that. No problem. And that's the one situation in which I see that these guys would get off -- as you describe that they might -- jury nullification...


You believe that the prosecutor has already proved the case when nobody has seen the case.

The writer involved has "made the case" himself by what he's already said. (1) Lost property, (2) buys it for $5,000 -- result "crime committed" according to the law... :-)


When this little drama has fulfilled everyone’s needs, it will quietly go away.

Well, if I know "police" and "prosecutors" -- crimes that they go after "go away" when they get their pound of flesh ... LOL ...

198 posted on 04/27/2010 7:14:30 PM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies ]


To: Star Traveler

Reporters never let the facts get between themselves and a good story.

I’m really glad that that reporters don’t get to determine the facts in a case. If they did, there wouldn’t be a conservative outside the penal system. Poor Sarah would be serving a life sentence for being a stupid poopy face, and W would have been served with a firing squad for stealing elections.


199 posted on 04/27/2010 8:29:07 PM PDT by dangerdoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies ]

To: Star Traveler

One more thing,

“The facts that are relevant in the California law are not in dispute by anyone.”

Really, I would bet that there are at least two people that dispute the facts. By definition, your statement is just silly.

Almost as silly as me responding to it, I think this thread has run its course. Good luck FRiend.


201 posted on 04/27/2010 8:37:18 PM PDT by dangerdoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson