The appeals court that quashed the indictment against Miller and Layton did not feel any evidence needed to be examined to determine that Miller and Layton were innocent. If evidence had to be examined, that job would have been left to a trial court judge or jury.
The Supreme Court's decision didn't uphold a conviction; rather, it provided that the case must go forward to trial court where evidentiary questions could be resolved. As such, it would have been folly for the court to issue a decision with less than complete instructions. The entity responsible for deciding matters of fact would be a jury, and the only thing a jury could possibly do with information relevant to the defense is to acquit the defendant if they find that such information compels them to do so.
The clear implication, then, is that since the only matter the court mentioned as being in factual dispute was the military usefulness of a trenchgun, that would be the only matter a jury would have to decide in order to acquit.
Something that is being forgotten about a SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd amendment. Its been pointed out several times on this thread that liberals haven't any interest in upholding the constitution, rather they seek ways to tear down its original purpose of protecting our God given rights. The majority of the justices are liberals. Their ideology will over ride any legal arguments. The DC ruling will not stand.
Correct. If the jury was presented with evidence supporting the military use of a sawed-off shotgun, then the tax stamp would have been unconstitutional (implied by statements from the USSC). Meaning the law under which Mr. Miller was charged was unconstitutional. Meaning Mr. Miller would go free.
You'll note. Nothing in that process describes an individual right.