I'd like to read something besides a story from a libertarian web site before I form an opinion.
Asking jurors to interpret the Constitution is not what one is asked to do in a courtroom.
Jurors are asked to decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty of breaking THE LAW.
Asking jurors to interpret the Constitution is not what one is asked to do in a courtroom.
Jurors are asked to decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty of breaking THE LAW.
Up until 1893, judges routinely instructed jurors that they are to judge both the facts of the case and the law as it may or may not apply to the case. Jury nullification. Obviously you side with the parasitical elite government officials, mainstream media and many tenured professors and not with the people whom are the ultimate guardian of their laws.
From post #59, Zon wrote: It seems clear that the judge wants to stifle the case to a simple question of, "did Stanley break the law as it is written?". In other words, the law is the law and that's the end of that issue. ...Now the only question that matters is: did Stanley break the law?
I'd like to read something besides a story from a libertarian web site before I form an opinion.
Yep, you want to make sure you get the appropriate spin and talking points to tow the line.
In Germany it was THE LAW to turn in Jews and it was THE LAW not to give aide and shelter to Jews. Would you say these LAWs should have been obeyed? And, juries should find people guilty and punished for violating these LAWs?
I firmly believe in Jury Nullification, a jury must judge the law as well as the facts of the case.
One other purpose of a jury is to judge the merits of the law.
******************
Jurors have the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution.
That's what jury nullification is all about.
Jurors are not required to blindly follow bad laws.