At #150, I posted:
Read much tomcorn? -- Here's what I support:
"-- Jury nullification of law," as it is sometimes called, is a traditional right that was rigorously defended by America's Founding Fathers.
Those great men, Patriots all, intended the jury to serve as a final safeguard; a test that laws must pass before gaining sufficient popular authority for enforcement.
Thus the Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power; representatives, senate, executive, judges;
-- and finally juries.
Each enactment of law must pass all these hurdles before it gains the authority to punish those who may choose to violate it. --"
A History of Jury Nullification
Address:
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PV wrote:
To: tpaine; tomcorn
You're both confusing the issue.
The issue is clearly NOT whether juries have a right to nullify--they obviously do. In this case, if the jury would have come back with a not guilty verdict, what could the state have done? The answer is nothing; thus, the jury has a right to nullify.
The issue, however, is whether a party can argue for jury nullification. The judge said no, and this appears to square with the law in this country for at least a couple hundred years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read much Pube Val? --
The issue is INDEED whether a party can argue for jury nullification.
The judge said no, and this does NOT square with constitutional [6th Amendment] law in this country for at least a couple hundred years.
Use the link if you don't believe my quote.
It does square with 6th Amendment interpretation in this country. I've read your link. The only cases that were cited in that link in which attorneys successfully argued for jury nullification are pre-constitutional cases.
Indeed, most telling is Zenger's case, which was cited in your link. Tell me, do you read much? Have you read Zenger's case? The Crown in Zenger's case argued (and the justices agreed, in fact) that there was no right of jury nullification. In fact, Zenger's first two attorneys were disbarred for criticizing the Court, in many instances on its stance against jury nullification. It was really only Hamilton's reputation that allowed Zenger to present his defense at all.
Your link, again, confuses the issue of the POWER to nullify and the right to ARGUE for nullification. I suggest you learn the distinction, along with the FIJA. Of course, I suspect that the FIJA is well aware of the distinction, but is more than happy to dupe the folks that fail to grasp such minute, but important, details.