[Lurking Libertarian]

The "judge" did not allow the defendant to testify.

How the in HELL does that square with innocent until proven guilty?

The judge didn't say the defendant couldn't testify. He said the defendant couldn't argue to the jury that the law was unconstitutional, because that is a question of law for the judge (and the appellate courts).

That (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.

He can still argue the constitutionality of the law on appeal, but that will be decided by the appellate court, not by a jury.

[tpaine]

"-- (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. --"

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)

[suijuris]

The judge didn't say the defendant couldn't testify. He said the defendant couldn't argue to the jury that the law was unconstitutional, because that is a question of law for the judge (and the appellate courts).

If you research history you will find that prior to the enabling act of 1934 it was proper to argue the constitutionality of a law to challenge the jurisdiction of a court. From about 1912 up till 1934 there was an orchestrated effort to eliminate the ability by the sheeple to assert their constitutional rights.

[tomcorn]

You gotta be a lawyer....

[Teacher317]

Thank you for the excellent clarification