[chuknospam]

Judges have wide descretion in how proceedings in their courts are handled, but I don't think it's wide enough to exclude the US and state constitutions in an issue that they specifically address. Maybe if it were just a matter of violation of some contract between two parties. Maybe.

Actually, this is a sickening but unfortunate part of the judicial process, yes the Constitution can be excluded. You as a defendent & your attorney cannot read the law/statute as it is printed on the books to the jury, you cannot read or refer to the Constitution as it is written, you as a juror cannot go out and research the case and any associated laws or discover anything on your own. The judge can taylor & restrict the testimony & instuctions to the jury in any manner they see fit, to how ever it serves their agenda or their supporters agenda the best. This is true in all courts. It is digusting and revolting more so than any crime, the justice system is a criminal entity within itself, serving itself, to perpetuate itself.

[William Terrell]

Yes, the judge is charged with issuing instructions as to the applicable law to the jury from a list of instructions submitted from both sides. He can pick and choose. But I understand, in a jury trial, jury instructions are the bases for an appeal, whereas little else is. From this judge's behavior, I'd say that appeal is likely.

Ad quaestiones facti non respondent judices; ad quaestiones legis non respondent juratores.
The judges do not answer to questions of fact; the jury do not answer to questions of law.

De jure judices, de facto juratores, respondent.
The judges answer to the law, the jury to the facts.

I know. But jury nullification is still a real thing. Juries can aquit in spite of the instruction the judge gives them, and, if enough juries aquit, the law is de facto nullified.

[exodus]

To: William Terrell
"...this is a sickening but unfortunate part of the judicial process, yes the Constitution can be excluded.

You as a defendent & your attorney cannot read the law/statute as it is printed on the books to the jury, you cannot read or refer to the Constitution as it is written, you as a juror cannot go out and research the case and any associated laws or discover anything on your own.

The judge can tailor and restrict the testimony and instuctions to the jury in any manner they see fit, to how ever it serves their agenda or their supporter's agenda the best.

This is true in all courts.
It is digusting and revolting more so than any crime,
the justice system is a criminal entity within itself,
serving itself, to perpetuate itself.
# 62 by chuknospam

******************

Good post, chuknospam.
It's worth repeating.

The defendent isn't allowed to use established law to protect himself, but the government can decide which laws apply, and tell the jury to ignore all conflicting law.