If I were the lawyer, I'd have said it anyway, just to have it on record. If the judge put me in jail, I'd have gotten out and the case would've been tossed out on appeal. One way to challenge a criminal charge is to challenge the basis (i.e. the validity under the Constitution) of the law that the person was charged with violating. Whether you succeed or not is a different matter, but if you even raise the issue, then its GOT to be a mistrial. I don't know what happened in the case, but it is absurd that a judge could even think of saying such a thing.
What the judge said was that Stanley's lawyer couldn't argue constitutional issues in front of the jury, which is a correct ruling under current law. He was permitted to (and did) argue the legal issues to the judge. Stanley's conviction was affirmed on appeal.
Read the 5th & 6th Amendments. -- Due process must be followed in trials before impartial juries informed of "-- the nature and cause of the accusation --".
The question of whether the law against possessing machine guns is constitutional is part of "the accusation".
The question of whether the law against possessing machine guns is constitutional is one the defense can raise before the judge; if they lose, they can raise it on appeal.
'Legalistic' nonsense. -- If an informed jury decides the 'law' does not apply to the case at issue, the defendant is free.
But our system, as currently set up, does not permit juries to hear arguments on the constitutionality of laws.
Our 'system' is set up to ignore the 5th & 6th amendments and to prevent jury nullification; - that aspect of it is unconstitutional in itself.
[A judge said that a] "lawyer couldn't argue constitutional issues in front of the jury, which is a correct ruling under current law."
"Currant law" is the issue here. Arguing that 'the law is the law' is simply specious legalistic babble.