Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gordongekko909

I take it Louisana doesn't allow jury nulifcation?


71 posted on 02/18/2006 5:40:54 PM PST by null and void (before the darkness there's a moment of light, when everything seems so clear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]


To: null and void; dagnabit
I take it Louisiana doesn't allow jury nullification?

Dagnabit! I did do a spell check...

74 posted on 02/18/2006 5:42:30 PM PST by null and void (before the darkness there's a moment of light, when everything seems so clear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: null and void

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.


75 posted on 02/18/2006 5:43:33 PM PST by Gordongekko909 (I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: null and void
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.

76 posted on 02/18/2006 5:46:05 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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