That is exactly the point. In his trial he was forbidden to raise constitutional issues because they are appellate court process. He was in a federal district court. NOW he may raise constitutional issues if Fincher decides to appeal his conviction in an appellate court.
Well, seems to me that to not be able to say anything in court in your own defense violates basic due process. No matter what the charge.
"-- (right or wrong) is how our system has operated since 1895, when the Supreme Court ruled that defendants could not argue legal issues (or jury nullification) to the jury. --"
L-lib, -- the issue has gone beyond "(right or wrong)" -- Such arguments completely ignore the defendants 5th & 6th amendment rights, --- in order to prevent jury nullification.
"-- At the time of the American Revolution, the jury was known to have the power to be the judge of both law and fact.
In a case involving the civil forfeiture of private property by the state of Georgia, first Supreme Court Justice John Jay, instructed jurors that the jury has "a right to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."
(Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794:4)
To: Lurking Libertarian:
tomcorn wrote :
You gotta be a lawyer....
In his trial he was forbidden to raise constitutional issues because they are appellate court process.
He was in a federal district court.
NOW he may raise constitutional issues if Fincher decides to appeal his conviction in an appellate court.
Tom, tell me, -- do you contend that efforts to inform or instruct jurors that they have "a right to determine the law as well as the fact in a controversy are unconstitutional?